Martin HÄUSLING

Policy topics Martin HÄUSLING is active on

What Martin HÄUSLING has said (69)

• 2026-06-17 “Their colleagues, it very clearly shows that what we're talking about here today is what we don't want in the parliament. No patents on seeds. There was a clear majority on that. But now we're in a moment where we would endanger the European seed sector. European farmers, and we're opening the door wide for American genomic and GMO companies. So we cannot accept this. So what Parliament wants is transparency, the freedom to choose for consumers. And at the end of the day, we need labeling for NGOs. Even that has not been achieved. And furthermore, we're doing away with the precautionary principle. There's no traceability, there's no risk management. And we simply cannot accept this. This is a high risk technology. And another thing I'd like to underline all plants can be patented. There are no limits to that. So this proposal is simply not acceptable. Dear colleagues let's once again discuss this topic. Let's accept the amendments. Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• 2026-01-12 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 16.3.2026 Written question The Joint Research Centre has carried out significant work on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs), e.g. on scientific aspects and state-of-the-art analysis in relation to market access [1] and on case studies [2] . While the state-of-the-art analysis in relation to market access provided a comprehensive review of market applications of NGTs, it does not contain the molecular data that is necessary to assess whether a specific NGT plant would be a Category c or in Category c, as in many cases the necessary information is not publicly available. Therefore, the Commission cannot provide an estimate, based on the work of the Joint Research Centre, of what percentage of NGT plants would fall into Category c according to the criteria of equivalence of NGT plants to conventional plants as agreed between the European Parliament and the Council in the provisional political agreement of 3 December 2025. [1] New genomic techniques — State-of-the-art review, Publications Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/710056. Current and future market applications of new genomic techniques, Publications Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/02472. [2] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC131721. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC131711.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• 2025-07-17 “E-002948/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The safety of the soy leghemoglobin protein produced using the genetically modified yeast strain MXY0541 was thoroughly assessed by two scientific Panels of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 1,2 . They confirmed the safety of this protein for its intended use, following established risk assessment methodologies, as the Honourable Member was already informed 3 . For the assessment, the applicant provided a 90-day feeding study in rats, as required by the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) legislation 4 . This study was conducted with a test item from the actual strain used for production (MXY0541), as stated in Section 3.8.1.1 of EFSA’s opinion 5 . EFSA considered this study to be adequate and concluded that no adverse effects were reported up to the highest doses tested of the protein. The applicant provided additional feeding studies conducted with test items from strain MXY0291. EFSA assessed these supplementary studies in line with its task to consider all the information relevant for its assessment. EFSA also considered the peer-reviewed publication 6 referred to by the Honourable Member. On 18 July 2025, the Commission adopted a decision on the request made by the applicant for confidential treatment of certain information in the dossier. Following the decision, the Commission has requested EFSA to republish the opinion with some fewer elements redacted. Once published, the Commission will reopen the public consultation based on the updated version of the opinion. 1 The EFSA Panel on GMO. 2 The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings. 3 In the Commission’s reply to Parliamentary Question E-001090/2025 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 4 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1829/oj. 5 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060. 6 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10581837/.”
  GMOs · EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-05-16 “E-001983/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The relevant EU legislation considers the perceived problems raised by certain hobby keepers concerning intra Union movements of pedigree birds (defined as captive birds in the EU legislation). The EU has laid down harmonised animal health requirements that also apply to captive birds as they can transmit serious diseases like highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) or Newcastle disease, which can have devastating effects on European birds’ populations, and may present risks to human health. Participation to exhibitions also pose specific and not negligible epidemiological risks as evidenced by recent HPAI outbreaks at a bird exhibition. Since its adoption in 2020, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/688 1 has been amended several times considering inputs from bird hobby keepers. The revisions introduced provisions simplifying the movements of captive birds between Member States without jeopardising the overarching aim of the harmonised rules. For example, for the movements of captive birds from one Member State to an exhibition in another Member State, it is possible to collect the birds from several operators in a single registered establishment for certification, decreasing considerably the certification costs for each operator. The level of certification costs is set by Member States’ competent authorities. In addition, for near-border movements of live animals between neighbouring Member States 2 , those Member States may decide to set up agreements to grant derogations from the general requirements for movements while implementing risk mitigation measures, to facilitate intra-Union movements of captive birds where such movements are, for instance for recreational use or exhibitions, close to their common border. 1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/688 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards animal health requirements for movements within the Union of terrestrial animals and hatching eggs - ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/688/202501-09. 2 Article 139 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (Animal Health Law) - ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/2021-04-21.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-03-13 “E-001090/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission A high level of protection of health and the environment underpins the EU legal framework on genetically modified food and feed, by requiring a prior authorisation based on a comprehensive risk assessment performed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The risk assessment for soy leghemoglobin referred to by the Honourable Members was performed by two scientific Panels 1,2 , following established methodologies and relevant risk assessment guidance. The data submitted concerned the actual strain used for producing this soy leghemoglobin (MXY0541) and both EFSA Panels 3,4 concluded favourably on the safety of the soy leghemoglobin produced from this strain. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 5 provides for the protection of confidential information while ensuring that the key elements of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel opinion are disclosed to the public in accordance with its Article 30 and the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 6 . In compliance with Article 6(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, EFSA did not disclose certain parts of the opinion in the published version. The Commission is in the process of adopting a decision on the request for confidential treatment of certain information in the dossier, made by the applicant, which EFSA took into account when redacting parts of the Panel opinion. Should the Commission decide not to grant confidentiality requested by the applicant for certain elements, the Commission will ask EFSA to adapt the published opinion accordingly and will reopen the public consultation based on the updated version. The Commission is currently considering EFSA’s opinion in view of preparing a draft decision concerning this application in accordance with the procedure of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. 1 The EFSA Panel on GMO. 2 The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings. 3 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060. 4 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8822. 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1829/oj. 6 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/oj.”
  GMOs · EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-03-05 “E-000918/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Foods obtained from category 1 new genomic techniques (NGTs) plants fall under the Novel Foods Regulation 1 if they feature significant changes in the composition or structure of the resulting food, affecting its nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances. Given that such foods offer identifiable benefits to the consumer, food business operators have a strong interest in bringing such food to the market with relevant labelling information that is part of an authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation. It is the responsibility of food business operators to verify whether the food they intend to place on the EU market falls within the scope of the Novel Foods Regulation and complies with that Regulation. The Official Controls Regulation 2 sets rules for the official controls performed to ensure compliance with food and feed law. These rules entrust national authorities with the responsibility to carry out controls at all stages of production, processing, distribution and use of food and feed, including to ensure that food business operators apply for the necessary novel food authorisation where necessary, amongst others as regards novel foods that may derive from category 1 NGT plants. The Commission’s proposal on plants obtained by certain NGTs contains transparency measures for category 1 NGT plants that would support food business operators in the assessment of whether the trait(s) and characteristics introduced or modified in a category 1 NGT plant give rise to the significant changes in the food that would qualify it as novel. The Official Controls Regulation also provides the Commission with audit and control powers in the Member States and non-EU countries, enabling action at EU level when necessary. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj”
  New Genomic Techniques · EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-03-05 “P-000919/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recognises that regulatory requirements in general may be more burdensome for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). For this reason, the Commission has adopted a number of measures aimed at creating a business-friendly environment 1 , facilitating access to finance 2 , improving access to markets 3 , fostering competitiveness 4 , and innovation for SMEs 5 . As regards novel foods, some Member States are in addition providing financial and technical support for SMEs to prepare and submit novel food applications and others are exploring such possibility. Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published the second Call for Expression of Interest targeting Novel Food SMEs 6 , aiming at raising awareness and facilitating access for SME applicants to the pre-submission advice service by the European Food Safety Authority, specifically in the area of novel foods. The Commission carried out an impact assessment 7 prior to adopting its proposal on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) 8 , focusing on the burden and costs for food business operators and developers to bring NGT plants to the market, and not on additional potential requirements that might arise from other existing EU legislation applicable to category 1 NGT plants and products. According to the proposal, plants verified to be category 1 NGT plants would be subject to other regulatory requirements as they apply to comparable plants obtained by conventional breeding. The Commission notes that the Novel Foods Regulation 9 requires every operator to verify whether a food it intends to place on the market is novel or not and maintains a catalogue 10 with examples to support companies in this regard. 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entrepreneurship 2020 action plan reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe, COM/2012/0795 final (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52012DC0795). 2 https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/getting-funding/access-finance/index_en.htm. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/access-finance-smes/cosme-financial-instruments_en. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry_en#competitiveness. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation_en. 6 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/call/call-expressions-interest-efsas-advice-novel-food-smes-2025-edition. 7 SWD(2023) 412. 8 COM(2023) 411. 9 Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, OJ L 327, 11.12.2015, p. 1. See Article 4. 10 https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/novel-food/consultation-process-novel-food-status_en.”
  EU policy on novel foods · New Genomic Techniques
• 2025-03-05 “E-000920/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission It is the responsibility of food business operators to verify if the food they intend to place on the EU market falls in the scope of the Novel Food Regulation 1 . Food obtained from category 1 New Genomic Techniques (NGT) plants will fall under that Regulation if it contains significant changes in the composition or structure of the food affecting its nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances as provided in its Article 3(2)(iv). The Commission’s proposal on plants obtained by certain NGTs contains transparency measures for category 1 NGT plants: the foreseen public database will contain a description of the trait(s) and characteristics introduced or modified in a category 1 NGT plant. This will support food business operators in the assessment of whether those traits give rise to the significant changes in the food that would qualify it as novel. It can be expected that food obtained from category 1 NGT plants with such significant changes will be part of specialised supply chains as the purpose of developing such traits is to offer identifiable benefits to the consumer. The Commission does not have specific information on the costs of safety testing under the Novel Food Regulation. Such costs depend on the type of novel food and the necessary tests to prove its safety 2 . The Commission estimated in its impact assessment 3 that of a total of 15 applications per year from the first year of operation of the Regulation (two years after entry into force), 10 would be category 1 NGT plants. It is not possible to predict how many of those would be intended for placing on the market as food and what proportion thereof would contain traits that would require an assessment of the food concerned under the Novel Food Regulation. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj 2 The European Food Safety Authority has adopted technical guidance to support applicants in this regard: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/8961 3 SWD (2023) 412 final, Annex 3.”
  New Genomic Techniques · EU policy on novel foods
• “(18:02:28 – 18:05:03): simplification, but this is actually deregulation. Let's be honest. Now 1,000,000,000 of savings you've announced. Fantastic figures, I must say. But, you know, if CER comes to us, they say they don't have enough resources, understaffed, and now you're proud of having savings. Anyway, let's look at the detail. You know, pesticides that harm health in the environment, you take them off the market only once an alternative is available. Well, you can't say, well, they're dangerous to human health and to the environment, but I need to authorize them for as long as we found a new product. Surely, that makes no sense. That runs against consumer protection and environmental protection needs. Then indefinite authorization. That's completely absurd. Commissioner Varelli yesterday said, well, we're going to differentiate. Well, in the proposal, it says for 10 years, there's no more assessment after that, unlimited, period of validity. And my colleagues made this point. The definition of biological, plant protection products is vague. It's not clear enough. It says of biologic origin, but does it open the door to the chemical industry? Again, I don't think this is the right way of promulgating legislation. And for banned products, we have very long transitional periods. But surely, if something's banned, you can't continue using it for 3 or 4 years. It's entirely utopian what you're saying here. And then just 1 point because drones have been mentioned a great deal. Yes. This might be very good technology. But drones, once they're up in the air, you know, this spray drift, maybe it ends up on the fields next door. That's a problem that would have to be solved. And EFSA, as I've already said, say they're understaffed, but how are they going to assess drones and what works and what doesn't work? Again, I don't think this will work. So, basically, we reject this proposal as it's been presented, and I take the view that the commission should take another look at its proposals and make sure that this is in keeping with EU law and compatible with EU law. It runs counter to environmental protection, to consumer protection, and, we can't we can't we can't have it.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. You're also the Commissioner for Consumer Protection. And so my question, you touched on the new trilogues on NTS. Do you want to stop consumers having a labelling on news? Many consumers have asked for this and the EPP has asked for this. But you said that it would burden industry too much. So are you protecting industry or protecting consumers? I'd like to know. Now, obviously it's also important to see a reduction in pesticides. How many of the plants on the market are related to climate protection? Now, if you have other information then please could you tell us about that? There's a study which says that the regulation presented by the Commission does also does not also goes against the Cartagena Protocol. Now. Amr has also been touched upon here today. This is a huge issue and in livestock breeding there is a significant problem that is the use of anti biotics in animal breeding. Things have got a bit better but. Antibiotics that are for humans are being used and nothing has changed. What will you be doing to tackle this problem? If we don't tackle it now we'll have a huge problem in the future. My final question is on pesticides. I think it's scandalous that neonicotinoids are being given urgency authorisations, even though they want to be taken off the market. What's your position on that? Do you want this practice to continue? Many pesticides contain PFAS. This issue is not being discussed enough. What's the Commission's approach to that? And what about the message of your colleague? The Agriculture commissioner says that we should move away from pesticides when we have alternatives. What's what about that? So should these pesticides just stay on the market until alternatives are available for that? For consumer protection, this would be catastrophic. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Well, it would be perhaps better to hear from farmers. Perhaps they have a bit more to say about things in practice. You said that we have more and more imports, but perhaps I'm misinformed. But we We've seen an increase in exports. We had problems in certain areas, for example, on dairy farmers. We've seen a 50% reduction in dairy farms. And this with the number of cows hasn't gone down. So we see more and more cows not actually in holdings. This can lead to significant problems as well. You said that we have a luxury system in Europe. What did you mean by this? Does this mean we have too much animal welfare? I think we actually need more and more rules, not fewer rules. And that's why I was quite surprised to hear what you had to say. Now, I think you painted a very rosy picture of the situation. But I agree with you that we don't have enough veterinarian veterinarians, but the rest was too rosy in my view.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “My apologies, but I think some of you are suffering from Um. Amnesia here. Demetria, you were in the trilogue negotiations, weren't you? The big groups were very happy. The EPP were celebrating the great reform. The s and the liberals were all thought it was great. And now no one wants anything to do with it. Now that's either amnesia or selective recall. When is the commission going to stop? When it's done away with all of the environmental levies? Do we have no more climate goals? I mean, I'm shocked by this. Of course we can improve, but where does it stop? When the commissioner joins Copa-cogeca, the farmers go and demonstrate. And we change everything that we just introduced 3 or 4 years ago. I mean, I've got nothing against adaptation, but I think we're going well beyond. What we really ought to be seriously discussing here when it comes to the environment. All this is being rushed through. It's being presented to us as a fait accompli. It's absolutely unacceptable what's going on? I mean, if the if the Patriots are celebrating, then the commission should really give some thought to whether it's on the right track or not.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much for the report. One thing is very clear. I think that we have got to reduce the amount of antibiotics in our animal husbandry. We have actually managed to improve it in some in some member states. But I think that we can see in Europe it's not the same overall.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Well, I think the proposal for an observatory is a good one. It's a good step forward, but not sufficient. I mean, obviously observing is one thing, but you have to draw conclusions from what you have observed. And in the food chain there is this imbalance. And we need to sort that out. And if it emerges from the observatory that the imbalance is increasing in many countries, then action needs to be taken, as correctly said, by renew who is making the proposals, where this will, where will this lead and who's going to be involved? And obviously, I have all due respect for the involvement of Copa Cogeca, but there are um, others such as Via Campesina, which could represent the farmers as well. Only when all these Some parties are involved, will it be proper representation? So what's actually going to be delivered? We observe a lot. But then at the end of the day, politically speaking, not a lot emerges. So will there be political action, policy action as a result? And we need to have a greater part played by farmers in the chain. And we see we don't want to end up with this imbalance increasing and us doing nothing.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “And we need to have, um, those foodstuffs with high levels of um sugar, fat and salt properly labeled. There are some tax measures that can be deployed in order to help people make the right choices for sustainable and healthy foods. These need to be made mandatory and they need to be made visible. And we need also to ensure that the one health approach is adopted for micro. Um sorry for um bacterial resistance. Tobacco and alcohol. I've already mentioned them. Uh, we do really need to think about how we can strengthen, uh, the, uh, restrictions on tobacco consumption and alcohol consumption. I think the primary approach would be by making it more expensive. So there are measures of a preventive kind of, well, that can be adopted. And we need to have children, uh, awareness raising amongst children. Now we need to think about whether the EU can act and should act. And it's clear that we shouldn't be appealing only to individual action, but, um, early diagnosis, regular monitoring coordination, and the early recognition of key risk factors. We're looking forward to the report and we will be playing as a group a constructive role in that.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “And what really has annoyed us is the abolition of the second pillar, rural development. And we simply handed away if the commission gets its way, we cannot accept that it's a key element. And when it's been said, we can organise this so we create more regional possibilities. No, that would lead to the failure of the agricultural policy, the parliament, the commission doesn't really have a plan. It doesn't really have a vision. And what we can say together, yes, we can say this is really a bad proposal. We have to go to the negotiations and see if we can get more points and at least try to rescue the existing cap. I hope we succeed, but I see that there's going to be a lot of resistance and we're going to need more money. And then we have to go to the member states and say, yes, we need more money for the CIP, but please, not for direct payments, but also for those measurements measures where you provide public funds for public services. So and, and I just don't see that reflected on the Commission's proposal.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Minister, thank you very much for coming along today. I want to ask a question. About the regularization of new genetic Technology does not a council position yet you made a proposal which deals with patents. Patents are important, but it's only one of the many subjects. And your proposal basically says that the patents are a threat to small producers of seeds. And I agree with that. But that's not going to be enough to solve the problem of patents. So how are you intending to deal with this in the long term? And then the Parliament decided in its position that there's an issue of labelling of new genetic technology. This is very important, particularly for organic farming. You've completely left that aside in your proposal. We need traceability of genetic technology and we need risk assessment. And all of this is not in the commission's proposal. But it's very important to look at this if we really want to regulate the issue of genetic technology. So how does the Polish presidency feel about this? Do you think there will be an agreement in council so we can start trilogues this year, and how will the monitoring be done and how can we protect our soils? I hope that the Polish Council presidency will be energetic in attacking this so we can get a solution. Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “Yeah. Well, thank you very much to the commission for this proposal. You have our full support. This is in the sector. There was a lot of intense discussions. So all of this work fed into the proposal by the commission. And now what we need is an agreement as quickly as possible. We can take. We can't take too long to reach a decision because otherwise there might be a whole series of problems. So if we don't make amendments as quickly as possible, the sector will have problems for imports. Now, what's fully clear, this doesn't mean that we need to rush into protection provisions. There is this idea of equivalence. We need to have strict examinations because we can't just let any old product onto the European market. So I understood that. We'll see how many measures are used. We see how many countries will have this equivalence. But we want to avoid problems for imports. And really the sector expects from us that we will take action quickly. If we all submit a lot of amendments. This will slow things down. I think we need to work as quickly as possible, and the groups should work to ensure that we aren't opening a whole Pandora's box, and that we really just focus on the specific points we've been asked to focus on.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you very much for this report. But it shows very clearly that we've got our work cut out. It shows clearly, above all, that intensive farming seems to create the biggest problem. 95% of the problems seem to come from intensive farming. And we're seeing that the issues here have not been resolved. We are talking about pollutants earlier and PFAS. That's something we've covered again. But I think measures have to be taken. And once again, we're seeing problems in many regions with intensive animal husbandry where there are problems resulting from slurry and manure in agricultural policy in many areas. We're seeing retrograde steps. We had made more progress, but many environmental measures in the agricultural sphere are being turned back on paper to improve food security, but actually it's to carry on intensive farming. So I'd like to know what the commission is doing. The fact that on the one side, there's more intensive, stringent, more stringent measures. And yet environmental measures in the agricultural sphere is going the other way. I mean, we're looking at what's going to happen in future. And obviously we have to integrate all of this into the lives of citizens. The commission is no longer talking about the Green Deal or farm to fork strategy. We're not hearing that from the Agriculture Commissioner. We're producing more intensively than ever. Nitrogen production. Issues there. We saw that in Germany there was an infringement proceeding that was started. And yet now it's been halted and the federal states have taken retrograde steps again. So how how does the commission Commissioner praise the fact that the nitrate levels are not being reduced in Germany? I'd be interested in knowing that. And I think we we need to make sure that the commission in its policies are harmonising what it's doing. You can't do one thing in the agricultural sphere, allow more intensive farming and reduce environmental. The environmental legislation, on the other hand, increase it elsewhere.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “I have to say that I'm quite surprised that from the right they're saying it's a national responsibility. Europe should stand back and not have anything to do with it, but quite the opposite. Europe needs to take care of the forests in the member states. We have these dramatic situations. Just in Germany we've got 600,000 levels of destruction, not just through the bark beetle, but other issues as well. The CO2 is no longer a CO2 capture, but an emitter of CO2. And so therefore we need permanent expert group that will take care of the implementation of the Green Deal and also will coordinate this area. That's a key competence of the European Union. It's a national. We can't say it's a national concern. Europe should step away. That's really not the right way to do it with the EU. We want to try to coordinate it and do something that belongs to all of us. And so therefore this can only be good. And with the council being skeptical about it, well, we need this. We need to stand together in an expert group like this. And we really need to implement this. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much for your statement. You've given a very general statement covering a lot of areas, but that gives us the opportunity to come up with a few questions for precision. Um, if we look forward to the cap after 2027. There will come a time where we won't have input anymore, and that will lead to radical change and cuts in cap. I don't know whether you can say something about that, but if that happens then that would be a catastrophe. Um, but let me address the points that you raised. I'm a shadow rapporteur, and indeed he's in your communication. You said you wanted to do your utmost to get a result. What does do your utmost mean? Use all your powers. What? We've been together for a long time. There's a clear picture here. There's no sign of compromise on either side. Um, but we're talking about core issues. Uh, patents, for example. We're quite clear in the Parliament. We don't want patents. Um, We have clear positions on many points. There's no sign of compromise. So what would be your contributions to a compromise position? Um, organic farming? Um, at the moment, that's something that we want to promote. Um, in the area of climate, uh, transition and adapting, we're seeing huge impacts of the climate, climate catastrophe. So adaptation is going to be a central issue, not just to fighting climate change, but also adapting agriculture. What are your plans there? What I fully under support, what I fully support is that we need to look at antimicrobial resistance, which is one of the biggest dangers, not just for humans but also in animal breeding. And livestock management. So I'd like to know what your plan steps are there. I think that in many of these areas, we need to be very focused and detailed when putting together a plan. You said also on animal transport. That's another area. And how would you plan to apply those details as well?”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you Commissioner. Now, I wasn't particularly satisfied with your response on PFAS. We could wait for years. Um, we have many pesticides that include PFAS and why wine is also contaminated with PFAS. Fires and. Something needs to be done about it. And when it comes to anti biotic resistance, you didn't respond to how you will tackle this. If you look at um the different um areas um you have dog breeding hasn't contributed to this. For example you need to have a differentiated approach. If you look at um, the this is something that needs to be tackled. And on the use of pesticides, you, you say you talk about alternatives, but. We have the problem Because of crop rotation. That's too intensive. A lot of a lot of that could change. Other techniques are used in other areas. And we're not discussing that. And. And lots of measures have been actually repealed by the agricultural commissioner which makes sense. And then labelling of foods. We know that we have too many food products on the market. And. What about the fact that. The proportion of sugar and salts in food products are so high? We need urgent labelling labelling for that. Children find are exposed to significant concentrations of these things in their foods. This is a huge issue. We have obesity in children. We can't simply continue as we are. We need better labelling and better management of those labels. Thank you.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• “Yes, Madam Chair. Why are they being merged? These two points. This have an extra agenda point. Now, this extra report from the commission. In my agenda there is two different points. And if we are supposed to deal with everything in two minutes. You know, for the two reports, you know, it just can't work this way. Either we have four minutes to speak or we do one after the other. That's sort of I don't think we should be doing them in one specific one single point.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you very much for the very interesting study. Now, you said things need to change, but you didn't actually say what we need to do to change. Now, I come from Germany, and 80% of the market is determined by four big supermarket chains. And if you look at dairy farmers are not able to come together and produce organizations to negotiate prices. So how can we change these structures? You see, there are competition authorities, but what can be done? Secondly, in Germany, I have seen where there are no shortages in the market, but the prices in the supermarkets have skyrocketed. For example, organic milk prices are $0.30 higher. And how can we tackle that kind of thing? We need to ensure transparency so that we are able to tackle this properly. Obviously it's shocking what you said. 30% of farmers, especially smaller farmers, do not receive a fair income. If nothing is done about this, then these farmers will simply disappear. What is for you? A large farm? And how do they have better incomes? I wasn't quite able to follow that point, but what's most important is the fact that. The fact that farmers are receiving less and less money. You said 40% of the product price goes to farmers, but the other proportion is getting bigger and bigger. That's the core problem. How can we ensure we have a fairer value chain? And this because if it continues as it is, it will be very bad for European farmers.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Shadow. Reporter. And I think that I have the right. To make up. And. So that we want to have to make regulation of exchanges this post. And. The Council. That was the way of this camera sau. Parlamentul. Astăzi said that they. Will have to think. That. We want to have to register transparency with respect to information about. That. We have to have. You. Want to get the best of man. Who is that we can perhaps? Liberal Liberal? Than restrictions of the Council.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Dear colleagues. Brussels farmers. You know, what does the Commission do? Straight away they say we're going to cut red tape. But you know, that will have an impact on the environment. It's kind of backtracking on ecological measures. I remember, Commissioner, you were there when I was rapporteur for envy on the whole question of farming. I remember our exchange at the time. Anyway, never mind. We're talking about accepting grasslands. That's actually bad for the environment, bad for the land. And then the commissioner has got some proposals for the next cap. Again, it's a renationalisation. It's not acceptable. You know, why should farmers pay the price for the environment? It wouldn't be according to hectares. It wouldn't be according to surface area. Now, what we do agree on is that we need to strengthen the position of farmers in the supply chain. I think there we're all moving in the same direction. But I've listened to German farmers, farmers unions. What are they telling me? Basically that we're headed towards socialism? I don't know, I don't know. We seem to be far removed from reality. You know, we could have gone even further. Look at the exceptions, etc.. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “And colleagues. 84 times Parliament has debated a ban on GMOs. I've been quite clear in our. Opinion, there's been no qualified majority in the relevant Bodies, but that's been swept aside by the Commission as if the Parliament wasn't worthy of respect. We've seen GMO corn imported, we've seen feed, and we have seen many other examples. A further aspect is important. We cannot accept that what is prohibited in Europe is imported into Europe. We cannot allow double standards. And if we deal with it in the future, as we have done till now, we will destroy the trust of citizens in the institution. So, Commission, please remove your rose tinted glasses when it comes to GMOs and take this matter seriously.”
  GMOs
• “Thanks. I want to make my speech in German. When, uh, when I when. I think we are, um, in, um, agreement. Uh, we all know this is a real threat. Uh, there should be a lot more people here. Really? I don't think there's quite enough, uh, awareness of what, a crisis. Uh, we're, uh. Uh, I think there are a lot of, um, useful recommendations here. Now, we've heard of the hope of possible new antibiotics being found and being used, but it's, uh, we've hardly had anything in the last 20 years. I don't know if it's just because it's economically not viable or just at the end of, uh, what we can do, uh, for antibiotics. Uh, we've heard talk of phages. Perhaps that's something we can better work with in the future. Now, there's a real difference between north and south as well. How can we explain that? Is it just different standards, uh, that are in place? Uh uh, different regulations in, uh, different, uh, countries. Uh, the way that antibiotics are dealt with or perhaps, uh. In, uh, Europe, we have about half the antibiotics used, uh, for animals, uh, pigs, uh, chickens, uh, for example, there's a huge amount of antibiotics being used, uh, there. Um. So I think perhaps we need to be saying this is, uh, not. Okay. Uh, this cheap production of meat is linked to these huge quantities of antibiotics being used in my region. For example, there's a large abattoir for, uh, chickens, and, uh, there's a lot of antibiotic resistant germs that were found in the water there. So, uh, I think we need to think about waste water and to look at places like slaughterhouses to see what's happening when we have such high rates of antibiotics being used. And then my final question is that what can we specifically do here in Europe to move forward on this issue? We've been talking about it for a long time, but I'm not sure that we've really made any progress here, apart from just hoping that we will develop a new antibiotics. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Commissioner, you were very, very selective in your response, and you didn't respond to many of the things I asked. The biological material which is permitted. Is this truly biological material, or do we have some sort of label trick going on here? And it's actually synthetic. So actually it's a kind of fraud with labeling, if you like. Now food and feed. And the various violations that exist, do you see that as totally non-problematic. Now, what about genetically manipulated microorganisms? Uh, you said that there are great advantages for farmers. I don't see those advantages. You mentioned something in the United States to that effect. So what sort actually of implementation does there exist of this material in agriculture or. I'm not aware of that. Genetically manipulated microorganisms have a reproduction rate of just a couple of days, actually, sometimes just a couple of hours. So it's a totally different dimension. And I think somebody has to be looked into carefully. Tell us about that.”
  GMOs
• “Commissioner, I think you realized you wouldn't have an easy stick with this this afternoon. So what do you mean with these partnership plans? Does that mean that we, as the European Parliament, will now be working directly with member states? Do we decide how money will be spent? On what? If that's true, that will be the end of the cap. We'll actually be going back in time. Prior to Commissioner Fisher, you've actually jumped back. You've scrapped the old model, but what's going to replace it? So in Germany, for example, we'd have 14 programmes under one heading. And we don't know where that money goes to farming or to building roads. So none of this is very clear. And so what about the first pillar. Direct payments non conditional. So perhaps we could exclude a few voluntary measures from that. So this is an enormous step backwards. This is not going to tackle either climate or biodiversity crisis. So we've been told that this is voluntary. The speaker's microphone has been cut off.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Now, what's fully clear is that the sector can only grow if consumer trust remains. There is no area in the European Union which has such good consumer trust as the organic sector. And I'd like to recall that I think we have 10% of cultivated areas, and we had this, uh, goal of 25% of cultivated areas, which we should bear in mind, because ultimately, the organic sector is the sector where we can really ensure that we can pursue our ideas on environmentally friendly policy. So this proposal has our support. And when it comes to cleaning products, well, yes, there was the proposal there. But what's important and needs to be discussed is that we need is the roadmap. The roadmap is something that we need to look at closer during the procedure, something which may need to be corrected, but I think we'll be able to give our opinion on that.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Yes, doctor. Kritz, nice to see you again. I've got three questions for you. First of all, we've already talked about this, and that's the topic of FAS, FAS and pesticides. There's a lot of talk about pesticides in FAS about not using it here, there and everywhere. But there's no discussion, including from Efsa, that 70% of all pesticides have PFAs in them, and that every year they're being spread all over the soil in Europe. And how the soil going to cope with that. So I don't hear anything about what's happening. These substances can be replaced. And I think if everybody were aware of the risk of PFAs, not just for the environment, but for our health as well. Then surely if you come out with an opinion and say that these substances have no place being in concluded included in our pesticides. Secondly, on limit values, we hear that Efsa on PFAs is setting limit values of far too high, especially for drinking water. We need to be far more stringent on that. So I'd like to hear what your view is there on food and feed. We have heard several people mentioning about this, and I'm I'm surprised. I'm astounded. In fact, we we talked about glyphosate a lot. Imagine if it were proved forever, if there were an approval for that. In practice, many of these substances. During the course of time, we see risks coming to light, which we didn't know about before. And you have to draw conclusions. How can you really take this seriously? By saying, once something's approved, it's approved forever. I don't understand this. I find it a scandal, and it's scandalous that we're not discussing it. My third question in the European Parliament, we've had already over 100 objectives to the import of GMO foods. Despite this, it's being ignored thoroughly and comprehensively. We don't want these substances on the market. There is scientific advice that says this shouldn't happen. And yet Efsa is saying actually there's no problem. Are you ignoring the parliament or is there another issue I should be aware of? On any import, saying that everything is okay is surely not on.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Ladies and gentlemen, our most important task must be to make sure that Lukashenko, Putin and the Gulf States do not control our imports And if we look at those who want to get rid of sebum, well, the European fertilizer industry is not going to be strengthened by that. You have to strengthen or weaken it. When it comes to nitrogen production. That could be a path to take. We need that as well. I think we have a problem there because the organic fertilizers are distributed in very unequal fashion across the EU, so they'd have to be better distribution if that were to work. There's one thing that I've been looking at here in your documents ecological areas. We need to look at as well. Looking at soya Lucerne alfalfa and other nitrogen binding crops is a good idea. But there's one thing I don't understand. How can you come up with the idea that the nitrate directive should be got rid of? What? Does that have anything to do with anything. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. I'm not satisfied completely with the commission report. I think there's a lot of data missing, but. If we look at it over all, more of these medical products are being used in veterinary circumstances than in human medicine. And that's something that we have to think about. The W.H.O. says, and I think we'll all agree that one of the greatest threats to humankind is exactly what we have here. We have to stop it. We worked on the Vmp act, and we saw that antibiotics could not be used to compensate for bad animal welfare conditions. And I think antibiotics are often used to do exactly that. We have very good welfare conditions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that less of the MPs are used. At least that's what we see. I'd like to ask the Commission whether it has any data and then the use of reserve Biotics. There are five groups there that are meant to be reserved for human beings, used in emergencies when no other antibiotics worse, but they are being used in poultry rearing on a massive scale. Cholesterin, for example, is a reserve by antibiotic which is used in chicken fattening. There was a study in Germany recently and 80% of broilers were receiving colistin. That's unacceptable. In Denmark and other countries this product is not used at all. So how can you explain the fact that it seems to be possible in one country and not in another? And is the Commission taking any measures we need to keep our eye on reserve antibiotics? Massive use of such antibiotics is really concerning. We cannot accept it. And you said that we're on the right road. But if I understand the the statistics properly, properly from 22 to 23 there was an increase in volume. Are we going to achieve 50% by 2030? In these circumstances? I have my doubts.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you. Well, what is surprising, I have to say is the Patriots position. I mean, you won. The US or the American side are friends of Trump. Saying, well, we need to accept that things aren't working. But look what kind of chaos Trump is causing. You see that Trump is really causing a crisis in the global economy. And patriots just say, oh, well, the world's changing. So question is, are you on the European side or on the US side? What we cannot do as Europeans is simply saying, okay, Trump is blackmailing us and we have to do a deal. No, the EU needs to be very clear. Stick to its guns and send the signal that we will. We will take countermeasures if need be and they need to impact the US. And I don't know whether there might be a deal to be done, whether whether that is really appropriate. It's a bit irritating that where we say, oh yes, we import when it comes to soya from the US or LNG from the US, we can't, we can't go down that road. I think otherwise the international rules are out of force. So the EU needs to be very clear in sticking to its guns when it comes to Trump policies, which causes great damage to the US too, and which will massively impact the US citizens and especially US farmers, which will massively suffer from not being able to export. But Europeans and European agriculture is already suffering. Last week I was at a German wine firm which exports a lot. At the moment there's no exports basically going to the US because they're all holding back because they don't know what's happening from one day to the next in 2 or 3 weeks. So we can't export. So the impact is already massive. So question to the commission. What is the impact right now at present for European agriculture and for various sectors therein? So we need to be clear that we we won't be forced into a situation by the US, which of course is a complete economic chaos on both sides of the Atlantic. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Yes, Minister. The question is, are you behind the strategic dialogue of the Commission? And secondly, with NGOs, the Parliament has drawn a decision. We see the patterns in a very critical manner and the council. Two. So do you think that there should be labeling for LGBTs and they should be traced? And what do you think about Ukraine and joining the EU? You have a very Putin friendly boss. And so what do you see about that colleague?”
  LGBTIQ+
• “I think we have to be clear. Mr. Trump, the American president, has provided us with this huge fiasco. I think it was predictable, but this is what Herbert Dorfman said. We had the same problem, similar problem 4 or 5 years ago. That was Putin's attack on Ukraine. And we need to draw lessons. You can't just change the supplier. I think you need to have your own strategy. We in the European Union have have our own strategy. You know, looking at with the same methods to creating our own nitrogen. Well, I think we need to do two things. We need a solution. We need to look at how we can grow this, um, with, with crops and make sure that the systems are secure. Lots of NGOs are saying that 10% of arable land in Europe should be covered with these sorts of crops. Um. With the, with pulse crops. So we need to talk about these sorts of solutions. We need to be able to manufacture nitrogen here in the EU. But for that we'd need a different structures. You have classical structures that do a lot of gas, and we could do a lot when it comes to. Reduction. I think we I think we could bring the numbers down. But when it comes to. Doing things specifically, we need to look at help for the global South. You know, prices for food there are going up there skyrocketing. What are we doing in the Europe to help these countries in Africa, the Horn of Africa specifically? Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “I'd like to congratulate Mr. Stroheim bringing 29 different associations for this. Excellent. Or I say opinion, but we have to take into consideration that there are numerous different factors that are not represented right now climate and biodiversity. These are serious issues. Something has to change. Things can't continue on the same flow. We have drought, we have floods. Something has to be done, um. We need sustainable systems in place, sustainable agriculture, and we need to strengthen the position of the farmer in the chain. We have to have an increase in prices as well. This is very important. And I'd like to ask what, Mr. Hansen, uh, what is to be presented out of those, out of these first 100 days and the strategic Dialogue and what Madame von der Leyen has presented overall. Thank you. Mr..”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. On the eco regulation, you said you want to limit the procedure. What does that mean? There are three points that we need to solve. But I would urge you to be careful about this. We've been negotiating for five years. We have 18 trilogues. I mean, good luck if you really want to reopen all of that. I don't think it's a good idea. And on generational renewal, it's no point in just chucking out the old people and getting the young people in. There's no point in doing that. That's not the right way about it. What we need is money, monies and large amounts of it. If we want to invest in new jobs, new machines. That need such a lot of capital that people will say, well, I'm not going to be up to my eyes in debt for the rest of my life. We need to do something about this also. Access to land. As we mentioned, Europe can do something about this. 20% of investments are made in by people that have nothing to do with farming. How can we prevent that? And we need to give the land to those that really want to do something with it, namely farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “În Parlament, în astfel de situații a fost. I want. To. Be key. To make the. Point of. The. Free problem and. The future of food. And. Pesticide. Pesticide Commission. Liberalizarea pesticidelor. Este un termen fashion with the. Checks and. The market. Checks analysis methods that has to be implementat that the people to the importance. Of the picking continue. To the business. Este posibil ca. Romania have to.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “German Commissioner, you've explained here that foods in Germany or Europe should be considered as safe. But the International Cancer Research Organization regards some foodstuffs, including red meat, as carcinogenic. Nitrates are used as preservatives and they can become carcinogenic in the way they're converted in the body. This is proved by the Institute in Toulouse, and scientific show that 50g of. Processed meat can increase the intestinal cancer risk by 18% and long gitudinal studies, such as that by the Harvard School of Health that have followed tens of thousands of people over years, show increased cancer, cardiovascular and early death risks associated with it. And this is scientific evidence, and I wonder, therefore, how you can reconcile those facts with a Europe wide strategy for cancer. Are all foods really as safe as you say?”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “We shouldn't just have voluntary rules. No, I think we need more mandatory rules. The significant measures that we need to take look at alcohol and tobacco, for instance, in plenty of countries. Tobacco and cigarettes are relatively cheap, and that's something we can do on that score. And alcohol is is always underestimated in terms of the health outcomes. And I think tax is an issue here as well. And we also need to bear in mind the the healthcare costs that we faced and look at increasing taxes on tobacco, for instance. Another point I'd like to raise. We heard from the from the minister. He was talking about Amr antimicrobial resistance. That is an issue which I think we need to address in the report. And when we look at a treatment higher risks for patients, higher risk of infection Amr becomes more of a problem when you're you're dealing with resistant pests. So I think we need to do something about that. I think it's something we have touched on before, but we haven't really done enough on and isn't taking pride of place in our discussions. I think that's something that we need to work on. I'm very happy and look forward to cooperating with you all. I think we're going to get a very good quality report, and I think we can all come together and work on these issues and find solutions. Thank you.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you very much for the excellent report. And we've obviously played our role in that. I think the first thing we need to make clear is the importance that cardiovascular disease has for Europe. Almost 2 million deaths a year. That's already been mentioned, €280 million for a follow up costs. And Therefore, this is an appeal to all to be more committed to this topic. This is a very different approach taken in different member states. A lot of the disease is avoidable. The risk factors such as tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, environmental. Impacts are well known. Now there are some things we can do in Europe in order to reduce that impact. The environment, for example, is an area where we could clean up the air. We need to do more about that. Chemicals is an area. Pfas is one that we need to think about. Some groups are particularly exposed because of their professions. And then the access to healthy food. We've got an intensive debate going on in Germany about the provision of healthy food, particularly to children. And I think this is a preventive approach we need to adopt. We need better labelling of foodstuffs on the packaging.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you very much for visiting us today. And let me refer to this question of PFAS, because I don't think anything has been discussed more intensively than PFAS in recent months. Above all, it's because we have seen since research has been done in Austria that the TFA in other words, a product in wine, has been used at very high levels of concentration. And we've also seen it in bread. And I'm completely baffled, I have to say, as how you can have 30 chemicals that you're allowed to use in Europe, often used without having already done the evaluation. Yes, we've Efsa said yes, it can take 2 to 3 years before we get a risk assessment. But you see quite clearly with the analysis that where you've used quite a lot of pesticides intensively with using PFAS, then you see the concentration being very high. I can't imagine that we would need 2 or 3 years without being able to evaluate that. We've also been talking about. Products that fight fire as well. Foam. And so we do have alternatives. We have alternatives in the agriculture sector. So I can't really see how every day we keep talk about, uh, we keep using these, uh, forever chemicals that can never disappear. And we can't ask future generations to accept our behavior. So how rapidly are you going to be able to have the revised revision of this regulation? Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you. The commission says they're ready to respond, but then they didn't do anything. They need to respond. They haven't. We've all agreed there's a crisis and it's a very worrying. It's an existential crisis threatening the livelihood of so many people. We've lost half our producers over recent years. How long are we going to wait before the rest of them fade away? Export isn't a solution if we're just exporting at dumping prices. What does that benefit the farmers? If we don't have any proper instruments, what's the point in saying voluntary cuts in production? It's going to cost you less, but it isn't in the longer term. It's damaging to the farming sector and to the environment, and we have a clear option. The market may impose its own restrictions on the market, but the supermarkets are selling butter $0.99. This is light years removed from the production costs that the farmer is having to pay, and therefore we've really got to respond. We can't just delay any longer. And the crisis we're seeing more widely are simply going to play into an ever greater crisis for the farmers.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Now I give the floor to Mr. Hausling from the Greens. Thank you very much for that presentation. And. I am tempted to be in favour of this because it will annoy Putin and his allies. We want to support Ukraine. We want to we want to see both Ukraine and Moldova join the EU in the long term. So we have to take steps towards them. And some people are saying, let's protect our own farmers. We don't care about anyone else. That's not the right kind of answer. That is not the right answer vis a vis our future members, Ukraine and Moldova. Let's also be clear that we are we understand this agreement. We know that Ukraine And cannot export much more than agri products. Now. These countries ought to comply with our rules. That's not a given. And our rules are are stricter than the ones they have in Ukraine and Moldova. So these countries don't have the same agri production system as we do. So this is nevertheless a step that we do agree with. We would like to have some more data that wouldn't be bad. And I also want to know about how the controls will be developed over the long term. How are we going to monitor the compliance with our standards over the long term? That's another important point. But apart from that, I will say that I agree with this. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Yes, of course. I want to contradict my, um, my my colleague. It was very it was a very good idea. It was very sensible. But I can't send you off to your retirement now. We won't be able to be able to find a replacement for you, but you should be able to have the means and the funds. In order to have studies, you need the best scientists. And maybe there are. There are too few scientists in Parma at the moment. Over the last few years. It's clear that the topic of genetic engineering has been a big topic. There have been lots of Rejections of the import of of genetic engineering. But then you've said that it's not a problem. So. So are you taking this seriously or is there is there a blanket decision by the commission? You have a positive view of glyphosate. In the US, I know there are lots of concerns around glysophate. And there are also discussions around pesticides with PFAS. So I would like you to come to a solution and resort more quickly, please. There's also the question of things which are banned faster than they are authorized. Is this correct? Thank you.”
  Glyphosate
• “Thank you for coming, Minister. My question following on this summer and other summers, we've seen a lot of desertification in Europe. Do you not think that we need to do more? And rather than burying the Green Deal, we need to make faster progress. Because you talked about agriculture, and agriculture is the hardest hit. We need to have a good foundation for solving problems. But if I look at the report from the Strategic Dialogue, then it says that we need to make lots of changes. We need to move away from subsidies and subsidies for large companies. Are you entirely convinced that we need to move forward with the Strategic Dialogue as proposed. And then these NGOs, as has been mentioned, farmers are very much in favor of NGOs. There's a question of patents. The European Parliament has rejected the notion of patents. We felt that labelling would be more useful and we are going to maintain that position. But there is one other item I wanted to raise which has been pushed to the shadows, really in public debate, which is the fact that we have undertaken a lot of efforts to try and talk about use of medication in both humans and animals, particularly antibiotics. Is that a priority for you? Because a large number of people are going to be affected if we do develop this anti biotic antimicrobial resistance. And then the question of labelling. We have certain species that are labelled. I wonder whether the council is going to encourage more labelling of good animal welfare practices. And then the question of soil monitoring. Yes. Good. I hope that the presidency will be able to conclude on this file, because we do need to focus on the quality of the soil in our future work. Thank you.”
  Soil protection policy
• “I want to make my speech in German. Now. Commissioner. Well, we've seen that there are numerous different issues which have to be discussed. I don't think we can just go through these issues very, very quickly now in Parliament right now. The issue of patents is extremely important and we're in the midst of a trilogue right now. So we can't really look at this as no problem, that we can just push it aside for now. It's a very, very important issue. Deregulation, microorganisms. Well, there's no security standards in place, no traceability, no issues of how to deal with this in the agricultural sector. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about how we're going to deal with this in the agricultural sector, looking at what's going on in the United States. Um, now, as far as the security measures there, I think we have a number of different bad examples which we ought not to follow. Then food and feed. Now, there's a German report stating that article 191 and 180 68. Uh, there, I think there's sufficient food for thought on this particular matter. Very, very important that we have to think very, very carefully about any sort of approval systems or blanket approvals now. Now facilitating the approval situation. No, we really do not have sufficient information with regard to biological means of combating this particular scourge or the synthetic means as well. So I think indeed, I think it's very important for us to look at this with great profundity. And one as far as better frontier controls. Now, I always ask, well, why does, uh, there are it's very difficult when, when we export the same products that we're creating impediments as far as importing. Well, the question then arises, why are we exporting them in the first place?”
  GMOs
• “Colleagues. We need to spend our money better. That's what we've been saying for years. We've been just giving money in exchange for owning land. But that's not the point. We should be giving money to people who are doing something for the environment, for biodiversity. We need a strong second pillar. We need rural development. We must have healthy infrastructure in rural areas so that you can have traders, bakers making their lives there too. And also we need to encourage young people to take up farming. What do they need? They need capital and they need access to land. And above all, we need to support for disadvantaged regions. That must be the aim of the cap, and that must be what we work together to achieve. What we shouldn't be. Funding is intensive livestock rearing. What we shouldn't be funding is farming. That's based on Genetic engineering. We don't need patents on on life, on genetic engineering products. That's not the way forward. Commissioner, don't just listen to the farmers associations. Listen to the results of the strategic dialogue. And that will take us forward, not backwards.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Commissioner, I think at one point we agree. I think prevention and this is really a key objective in the future, I think. And but we also have to fight is the abuse of antibiotics And of course, you look at the figures connected to it and the use in animal husbandry, it's been falling. But now we're starting to see that it's rising again. We see 5% more in Germany. I'm very concerned that we want to see this use of antibiotics in animal husbandry simply disappear. So we say, oh yes, we need this for human health. But are you going to do something on this matter? Because I think you said, once again, it's simply not true that this is something that's urgently needed with in animal husbandry.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you very much for presenting this. But the devil does lie in the detail as we know. And the question is, is like, well, how do we increase the negotiating power of farmers? They seem to get what's left in the, in the chain. But we have to give farmers the possibility to be as strong as dairies or whoever else. Um, here we're talking about the issue of monopolies as well, and cartels. We need to look at the legal implications here. Farmers need to have some kind of base power basis, otherwise they won't be taken seriously. And another question arises if you've just got three big companies being in a producer organization, is that a good producer organization or not? The same rules have to apply for others as for others.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Very much. Thank you very much for coming. You said. That there are numerous different important proposals in soil monitoring. Very important for us. Could you tell us specifically what will be done as far as soil monitoring? Um. How do you envision all of that? There are a number of different compromises here. We would like to know what they are, and indeed, we want to see if we see along the same line as concerns, soil monitoring. Thank you.”
  Soil protection policy
• “When it comes to criteria, we think that's better than a hectare based groups of farmers. What we reject are the proposals that have been introduced whereby conventional chicks um for years. We feel that this would be a retrograde step where we to seek any changes here. When it comes to the commission report on pesticides. Pesticide residue is. I think we have to make it clear we still have no harmonisation throughout the EU. There are some three countries that have a 0.01. Figure when it comes to pesticide residues. When we have conventional products, that figure is untenable, which is why we're very far removed from harmonisation. What annoys us, and let me say that quite clearly, is that when it comes to imported products, the commission, when it comes to the 0.01% use of that threshold, and those who wish to import into the EU can't meet that figure, the Commission carries out investigations. When it comes to substantiated information with regard to unauthorised products, but that's not a legal concept. What does that mean for importers? There's some unsubstantiated product and then an investigation is triggered. I think when it comes to imports, there has to be a process based approach when it comes to organic products rather than thresholds in terms of pesticides, that's the wrong direction. Importers are saying that we cannot implement this, and the commission has said that investigations may last some 40 to 90 days. That is not something that can be implemented, and I think the Commission has seen that a more rapid, better solution is put in place. Otherwise, a lot of importers will just sort of pack up shop.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “I would make my speech in German.Thank you very much. I would very much like to thank the rapporteur. It wasn't an easy task, of course, but I think the report really does show how important this issue is. You know, you've talked about the figures on how many people are affected by cardiovascular diseases, and therefore we need to act urgently. We can't just rest on our laurels. We certainly need to act. And we're dealing here with people who did different groups. For instance, a woman who perhaps don't get the best out of the healthcare system. But there's a couple of comments I'd like to make. I'd like to see fed into the report. We need to also look at environmental concerns, such as air pollution and the effect that has on our health problems. Then there's also the issue of of pesticides and exposure to pesticides amongst our farmers. Occupational diseases. And that's something I think we need to pick up on. Another important point is the issue of of food. Too much sugar, too much saturated fat, too much salt. These are all issues we need to grapple with. We have been talking about labelling for for years. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to really make progress on that. But there are certain things that we can do when you're dealing with children. We can also set out clear rules when it comes to advertising. Um, certain types of foods should not be advertised to children. And I think we need to look not only at, um, having individuals responsible for their health, but also what society can do.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you very much indeed. Commissioner, thanks for the report. Well, we're in between a rock and a hard place between the US and China. They are trying to exert their trade power vis a vis Europe. What can we say as an answer? Well, we're just, you know, shrinking away. We're being hesitant. Even though we are the biggest consumer market in the world. Why are we being so hesitant? I just don't understand it. You know, we're doing the same for USA and China. So we're not going to achieve anything if we are reticent. These anti-dumping tariffs. You know this is basically the Chinese leadership imposing trade restrictions. Maybe has to do with overproduction on the Chinese market I don't know. But we need an economic answer. But we also need to have a thought about what we are producing. For years we've been saying we produce pig meat. We are transferring processing things in um, in Europe. Uh, we make hams and sausages and everything else is exported. That's what they said in Germany, but it's no longer the case. We can't just rely on the fact that everybody's going to take off our hands. What we don't use, we'll have to, uh, have a think about how we can adapt production to our core European market, uh, and close that circle. Instead of exporting things wherever and hopefully and hoping that things will be okay. We've seen within the EU, there was no real solidarity either when Germany was affected by African swine fever. Uh, I'm not going to name names here, but other countries very happy that they were able to get into the export market. So that was within the EU. We needed a bit more solidarity. We shouldn't be playing ourselves off against each other. So others took over our sector. So that doesn't that shouldn't fly in Europe either.”
  Trade relations with China
• “So colleagues, planting soya in Europe is no problem. We want more soya in Europe. This is no problem. I was myself in South America. There are many regions where it's actually a monoculture and that is what creates a problem. And I don't know why the commission has got their focus in the wrong place. We have experienced this already with palm oil. We also said we must regulate it because it shouldn't be used in biofuels. What happened then? You have then used oils and then there was palm oil in that, and that was brought into Germany. And then it was added to the mixture and it wasn't. So it wasn't terribly successful with the regulation. I'm generally speaking quite critical about the scenarios which are being put forward, as if we could replace fossil fuels with plant based fuels. The future is electric and we can't avoid that. We can perhaps use plant oils in agriculture for biofuels, for tractors, but we can't use it in all vehicles. So when you use rape seed oil, 20% is being used in the mix. It's a huge quantity. And in Germany, people are saying that we should start heating with is, well, I don't know where all of this oil should come from. It's not sustainable and it's not really environmentally sustainable for the future. So we should try to use it sustainably, but with an approach which makes sense, not the commission's approach.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Commissioner, you've presented a food and feed simplification package, and you're saying in it that pesticides no longer need to be checked regularly without any impact assessment. Pesticides can have substantial effects on health, in particular for applicants for farmers and others who come into contact with them. How can you reconcile that with the duty of care to drop those checks. In recent years, we've seen pesticides taken off the market time and again because of dangers not previously recognized. This happened with Forever Chemicals, the PFAS, fairly recently. How can you throw the question of the duty of care into question so much? You're the the health commissioner and that is something you need to take seriously.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “The commission. Should perhaps pay attention if I and Mr. Lins co-write a letter that should say something. Some time ago, we wrote to the commission and asked for this topic to be dealt with. And I think that the sector which faces difficult tasks needs our support. It's not about us wanting to change anything I say to the commission. It's a good step that the 26 different import standards are aligned and we have compliance. Importers will have to meet the same conditions as European producers. That's a big step forward. We fought for it for a long time in the organic regulation. It's not about that. It's simply saying what the commission has presented. Didn't give us the chance to raise objections. As a parliament, getting a delegated act just before the summer was a bit of a surprise. I'd never seen it before, to put it nicely, but I think we do need to give the sector the opportunity to adapt. The different importers briefly have received their contracts and the accreditation centres need to start working. There's an issue, as you know, with the producer groups, they need clarity. That's why it would be a good thing. It would have been a good thing if we'd had a longer transition period. It's not about watering things down. It's about saying to people, let's have the time to talk about this with the sector. And then I think we could get somewhere.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Yes. I'd like to thank the rapporteur from the EU for his report. And we agree on many points. The parliament, unfortunately, has neglected to completely reject the proposal at the very start. If we succeed during negotiations to fix many aspects of the cap, but that that's important to try, but I don't know if it will succeed. And of course, the contradiction is yes, we need more money and more money for agriculture. But in many member states, some governments thinks, well, these plans will be fine. And and I think it's hypocritical for the Agricultural Committee to say we need more money. I don't know any member state who wishes to invest more money in the European Union. So I think the key element we have to rescue what we already have, what we have currently. So we have to have uniform standards, especially in the idea in the areas of environment and climate and, and not just letting everyone just sort of go their own path. So we have to have a more this is a policy we have. And you want to say there's going to be less bureaucracy. I think if you have 27 member states doing their own thing, you're going to end up with more bureaucracy and not less.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. I'll be a little sarcastic when I say I hope the Commission believes its own presentation. I mean, if what it says is true, then there's no need to change or modify the cap. Look at the figures that the Commission itself has presented. Biodiversity loss has continued. What have member States done to promote Cross-compliance environmental schemes? It is difficult to see what is being done here. We see continued burden placed on the environment and backsliding. You talk about an increase in crop harvest. Tell us more about that. Is that just a figure that you've plucked out of thin air, or have you carried out the analysis yourselves? We shouldn't have rose tinted glasses here. We are hearing a lot that does not have any connection to reality. You talk about young farmers, but we have so many. Holdings without young farmers. So give us specific details. What exactly are you doing to promote environmental compliance? Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you Commissioner. Yes, we can see that several people in the commission are looking and looking at this. And there's also we had very lofty goals reducing pesticides, but we don't hear much about that. I'm not quite sure where you get your figures, but you can't measure pesticides in tonnes on the market. We have pesticides and Herbert Dorfmann, I always thought you were a serious politician, but to say that organic farming can be even more dangerous than conventional farming, that's. That doesn't make sense. You really should correct that. We have tried our best to to to take out, um, for example, crop rotation and lower environmental goals, but things continue. I'm. I'm interested to see what will happen with the, with the, with the package to reduce red tape. But that will be. And for most of the measures for member states are voluntary, things are going backwards. We need to be very clear. We need ambitious policy. It's not just about honeybees. If you look at the statistics, wild bees are at serious risk. Why? Because there's not enough biodiversity in the fields and so many pesticides are used. We need really need to look at the situation and look at the current data. The current data are absolutely disastrous in many areas. So commission, you need to be much more ambitious in your approach. You say you're planning things, but I really don't think anything will be achieved. And you continue to work as you are now. Thank you.”
  Reduction targets for pesticides
• “Yes. Fruits, veg, 50% of water. Wine thousands of times above the allowed limits. So it's not just about firefighting foam, it's about pesticides. That's where they are coming from. There are so many pesticides that are regularly used that include PFAS, and that's a scandal. One of the most frequently used are pesticides. Purine is used in wine in grape cultivation. So why are we continuing to use pesticides that contain PFAS? The commission has not even mentioned that pesticides are a major source of PFAS, and that we have to take these substances off the market. There are alternatives. You can't just constantly keep affecting and damaging the soil, the water with pesticides and then not ask the question, aren't there any alternatives? Of course there are alternatives. We have to very urgently take up this issue as well. We are damaging future generations as well without taking action, and the commission is forced to action. They have an. Absolute need to action because we cannot keep damaging our soils and our food. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you so much, Stefano Bonucci, for this excellent cooperation that we have in the European Parliament's team. And we have made progress on many points, but we are still stuck on a few points. I'm hoping we'll reach agreement at the next trilogue. The Parliament has talked about the external foreign companies, companies from third countries and traineeships and guaranteeing protection. Now commission and council don't really agree on that, but I think we need to give it some consideration because we have some big holdings. Switzerland, not to name names that are very strong in these exchanges. And we suggested that those holdings would have to appoint a spokesperson, a contact person. I think that's important. So we need to have this protection within the European Union. But we also have to have this protection from unfair trading practices from outside the EU. And I think that's an important point to be brought into the negotiations so that we can conclude successfully. And I think we're on the right track, and I hope and trust that we can resolve this.”
  EU policy on labour exploitation in global supply chains
• “I'd like to thank Mrs. Lauretti very much indeed for the report that she has presented. And perhaps I can recall or remind you that there was a trigger. Uh, well, the ruling was a trigger for amending the regulation. And amongst the proposals of the Commission, there is a road map and points are touched upon there that I think we can discuss at some point. But first and foremost, I think in this sector, we want to create legal certainty. That is our core concern. We have to work quickly, therefore, and complete this work by the end of the year. I think what is important is a confidence in the organic sector. We shouldn't undermine that in any way. The organic regulation has. Is responsible for the fact that there's a huge amount of consumer confidence here. Now, when it comes to the point that, as we see it, are not very not very good in the Commission proposal. Not not well addressed, the 5% ruling. According to annex seven, up to 5%, you organic products that that's the limit in terms of components in EU products. We don't think this is feasible. And I think we should dispense with things that we discussed for many years organic labeling, uh, country of origin on the labelling. I think these are issues that will only lead to more red tape. As I said, we've discussed them at length in the past. We have no definition of what constitutes a regional policy, and I think we should forego that. But there are some improvements suggested in the proposal. Reintroduction of a threshold. We we would reject the ten ton figure that has been suggested. And then the reintroduction of the 2% turnover figure.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “Well, I think the commission's report was looking at things through rose tinted glasses. We've got 600,000 hectares of forestry that we've lost through bark beetle drought. Uh, you know, we need to look at what's growing and where. In many areas we're talking about monocultures, plantations, eucalyptus in the south, for example. And this we need to be critical about this or pine forests that are solely pine. We need to look at what sort of forest we are talking about and how you define it. It's not the number of trunks that's important. It's a question of the systems ecosystems. 27% of forest in Europe is protected, as the commission said. Yes, on paper, but actually we only have 2% of natural forests that remain. You need to let that run through your mind. So of course old growth forest needs to be protected as well. This is not a luxury. This is essential for maintaining biodiversity in the future. When many people say, well, we have to carry on forestry farming, that's all well and good, but we need to see what we're doing. I've heard a lot of criticism of forestry in Sweden, and if we're using 40% of the wood to burn for heating, then it's not a sensible use of that resource. We need to be more critical about how we use forests. And I'm concerned, I have to say, when I hear the EPP together with the extreme right, saying that all legislation in the European Union about forestry should be rejected out of hand. You can't think that everything is fine and dandy, and the member states are doing everything properly. That is certainly by far not the case. So if you're going to reject a forest monitoring, you know, I don't understand. We have to have that kind of monitoring to understand what's going on. So I don't understand. Epp colleagues why you would reject that? It really doesn't make sense. We need to look after European forests. It's a central issue and the European Union has to stand for that.”
  Management of EU forests
• “And over across the world we can see that a lot of antibiotics are actually being used in animal husbandry. And this is really going to threaten the resistance in humans now. And I think, just to remind you, in the past, 90%. In the past, we did actually treat many of our animals with 90% of our animals with antibiotics. We we have got to make sure that we don't have that. We don't actually rely on antibiotics because we have poor animal husbandry standards, because we have got poor installations. So we've got to make sure that it's not simply used, that it's used simply to combat medicines and not to promote growth, for example, as we have in the USA. So these measures are actually inexplicable that this type of use of antibiotics is actually impacting our human health. So we have got to actually make this argument very clear. We can see that we are using a large amount of antibiotics in Europe. And I think we've got to make sure that this is reduced in the future years. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you very much. I would very much like to thank the ECA for this very important report. I think there's one thing that we all agree on across party lines. The financing needs to be guaranteed after 2028. I think this plan is one of the the best measures that you've drawn up over the last few years. And now if we're lacking money, then I think people outside of this room are not going to understand why. You know, we're dealing with a 1.1 million people in Germany were dying of cancer. That's far too many. There's not enough prevention. And when we look at the issue of tobacco use. We can see there are varying levels of ambition on this issue across the member states. In my member state of Germany. It's quite cheap to consume tobacco and that needs to change. So I think we need to ensure that member States can make an effort here and bring those efforts to the table. This issue of inequality was also mentioned. I'd be very interested in terms of how this plays out in terms of access to medicine. Treatment is expensive. It's becoming more and more expensive. We have an ageing population, of course, and we need to make sure that people have access to medication and high level medication like that. So I think this report actually feeds in to the budgetary discussions. And then we have to look at what the plan will look like moving forward. And I would like people to take to heart what we are saying here. We need to ensure that we have the necessary finances, and we also need to make sure that we work on prevention. We need to make sure that we have enough budgetary resources to be able to tackle this issue. Thank you.”
  Smoking regulation
• “We have to protect the, uh, the diversity in Europe and in. Unlike the US and other countries, we have a very wide variety of breeding also by SMEs. And when you're saying that patents don't endanger this, that I think that's nonsense. Parliament has said by a large majority that we don't want any patents on this. And you say, no problem. But if as a breeder, I have to use an NCT, then I have to use a patent and a patent can be refused. It's not that a company doesn't have to release its patent. So we're moving into a completely different area. And we can see now that the European Patent Office in Munich is already developing the patenting of plants, because needs are being used in them. And I think it's a very serious issue for and for European Breeders Association is a very serious decision. And I've been talking to people in Germany, and they're saying that just like us, as in a very we had a very large majority here against patens because it's completely sink the European system. And you're saying there's no problem with this? What planet are you living there? You were saying it's good. Eggs are not a problem. Patents are not a problem. I really don't get it. I don't know where you want to go with this. If you come in telling us that sort of thing. Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques