Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety – Extraordinary Meeting

5 October 2026

Legend

Transcript markers

  • text Sentence being played
  • text Search result
  • text Intervention cited by the link you opened

Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.

More options
Official source
Offset

Transcript offset

0s
Text size
Export

Select segments to export (Word)

0 segments selected
Live capture

Versions of this video

Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.

ENVI European Parliament

Follow its sittings
11:13 - 12:31
Speaker 1
Good afternoon everybody.  Welcome to our first meeting in Strasbourg of November.  We start with the adoption of the agenda.  If there are no objections, the draft agenda can be adopted without modification.  Interpretation is available in 20 languages. 

As usual, the meeting file is available electronically via the e-meeting application and the meeting will be webstreamed.  We have the minutes of the 22nd and 23rd of June, the 2nd of July and the 6th of July.  If there are no objection, the different minutes can be adopted without modification.  So we can skip to the item number four.  We will start today's meeting with an exchange of view on an objection to a delegated regulation establishing the certification methodologies for carbon farming activities. 

I will first give the floor to Mr. Bloss, who is one of the co-objector.  So Mr. Bloss, you have the floor. 
12:31 - 16:17
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Chair, and hello colleagues.  So let me start that we all agree that we want to reach climate neutrality and we will have to reduce our emissions.  But we also need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  We do need carbon direct removal and we will need to make sure that this is being accounted for.  And that's exactly why Tiemo Wölken, Martin Häusling and me object to this delegated act, because a carbon certificate is a promise. 

It says one ton of CO2 has really effectively been removed and it will stay removed.  And this act breaks that promise in many ways.  The Öko-Institut has tested this methodology against the UN's own standards under the Paris Agreement and its verdict is clear.  The EU rules set a lower bar and they will produce many certificates that are not backed by real carbon removal.  Here are the four biggest problems. 

First, the methodology does not account for leakage.  And we have often debates about carbon leakage.  Um, the Commission didn't account for all the land use changes from carbon farming.  It simply assumes they are zero without a scientific base.  The UN standard requires them to be counted. 

The Öko-Institut rates this as the single biggest risk in the entire methodology.  Second, the operators get to grade their own work.  They can choose between models, measurements and default values, and nothing stops them from picking whichever gives them the biggest number.  And on top of that, the safety margin for uncertainty is set far below the UN standard. 

For soil carbon, the UN wants 95% confidence that it's not over-credited, and the methodology of the Commission sets only for 75%, a 70%.  Third, we have no guarantee for permanence and no insurance against reversal.  When we say permanence, we assume several hundreds of years at least.  The CRCF regulation assumes that a rewetted bog will never dry out again.  Every major carbon standard, including the UN's, assumes the opposite. 

And fourth, additionality is missing.  The methodology pays for what was already happening.  Projects that have been running for years without ever needing this money can still be certified.  That doesn't remove a single extra ton of CO2.  So to conclude, and here I'm using the direct quote from the study assessing the CRCF methodology. 

So the quote is: "With the proposed CRCF methodology, the UN would fail to set a standard that delivers high-quality carbon removals and soil emission reduction as proclaimed by the CRCF regulation."  "If such units were used for compliance with EU climate targets, the CRCF could pose significant risks, potentially undermining the ability of the EU to achieve the climate targets."  Some will say objecting means delay.  But it's better to invest time for some proper standard than losing time for cleaning up the mess that we created with this standard.  Let's send this act back and ask the Commission for rules that are at least as good as the UN standards. 

16:17 - 16:20

Michael Bloss

Thank you very much.

16:20 - 16:28

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. The next speaker is Stefan Köhler from EPP. The political group have two minutes.

16:28 - 18:05

Stefan Köhler

Thank you, Chair, and I would like to talk in German. Carbon Farming kann für die Landwirtschaft einen echten Mehrwert schaffen: zusätzliche Einkommensmöglichkeiten für Landwirte, mehr Kohlenstoffbindung im Boden und zugleich Maßnahmen, die Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Resilienz verbessern können. Wir brauchen deshalb diesen delegierten Rechtsakt, damit der bereits beschlossene freiwillige CRCF-Rahmen für Carbon Farming praktisch angewendet werden kann. Klar ist natürlich: Carbon Farming darf nicht dazu führen, dass produktive landwirtschaftliche Flächen aus der Produktion genommen werden.

Genau deshalb müssen die Auswirkungen auf die direkte Landnutzungsänderung und Ernährungssicherheit beobachtet werden. Aber wir sollten reale Risiken adressieren und nicht auf Basis hypothetischer Risiken den gesamten Rechtsakt blockieren. Ein großer Teil der zertifizierbaren landwirtschaftlichen Praktiken kann innerhalb der bestehenden Produktion stattfinden, etwa Zwischenfrüchte, Bodenbedeckung, Agroforst oder Präzisionsdüngung. Der Rechtsakt ist deshalb sinnvoll und notwendig. Zusätzliche Anforderungen zu ILUC oder Landspekulation wären zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt unverhältnismäßig, solange sich kein relevantes Risiko in der Praxis zeigt.

Die Zusätzlichkeit ist bereits ausreichend abgesichert und auch gegen problematische Monokulturen enthält die Methodik entsprechende Schutzvorkehrungen. Unser Ansatz sollte deshalb sein: anwenden, die Entwicklung beobachten und bereits jetzt eine klare Überprüfung nach einigen Jahren vorsehen, um zu bewerten, ob und wo nachgesteuert werden muss. Vielen Dank.

18:05 - 18:09

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you, now for Patriots, Alba Bonte.

18:09 - 18:14

Thank you chair, I will speak in Dutch.

18:14 - 19:52

Barbara Bonte

Ja, koolstoflandbouw kan landbouwers inderdaad nieuwe kansen bieden en boeren die via hun bedrijfsvoering extra koolstof opslaan of emissies uit de bodem verminderen, moeten daar ook een economische meerwaarde uit kunnen halen. Dus heeft zo'n systeem alleen toekomst als het ook voor de boer zelf werkt. In de eerste plaats moet de landbouwer zelf kunnen beslissen of deelname past binnen het bedrijf. Het systeem mag daarom niet uitgroeien tot een zoveelste nieuwe verplichting. Geen twee landbouwbedrijven zijn immers hetzelfde.

De mogelijkheden hangen af van de bodem, de teelten, de bedrijfsvoering en de specifieke investeringen die een landbouwer in het verleden al heeft gedaan. En daarom moet certificering in de eerste plaats een economische opportuniteit zijn. De vergoeding moet opwegen tegen de kosten, de administratieve lasten en de engagementen die van de boer worden gevraagd. Certificering, monitoring en controle mogen niet wederom onnodig complex of duur worden gemaakt, zodat de meerwaarde voor de landbouwer verdwijnt. Ook boeren die niet kunnen deelnemen, mogen daardoor niet opzettelijk op achterstand worden gezet.

En daarnaast moeten we bovendien vermijden dat een vrijwillige certificeringsstandaard geleidelijk uitgroeit tot een algemene norm waarvan landbouwbedrijven afhankelijk worden gesteld als het gaat over financiële steun. De kern moet zijn: keuzevrijheid voor de boer, werkbare regels en een economisch perspectief voor het landbouwbedrijf. Want alleen dan kan koolstoflandbouw voor Europese landbouwers een reële bijkomende mogelijkheid worden.

19:52 - 19:56

Pierfrancesco Maran

The next speaker, Lydie Massard.

19:56 - 21:28

Anja Hazekamp

Yes, thank you. This delegated act is not a technical detail. It is a question of whether the Commission will respect its own legislation. The basic act requires full accounting of emissions, including indirect land use change. It requires additionally proper liability for reversals, biodiversity benefits, and safeguards against land speculation.

And yet this delegated act fails to deliver those requirements. In other words, the Commission is breaking its own law. And the consequences are serious. If we certify carbon removals that are not genuinely additional or ignore emissions displaced elsewhere, we create fake climate gains. Those fake removals then undermine our emissions accounting and can allow real emissions reductions to be avoided.

This is not climate action. It is greenwashing on a massive scale.

And it's not good for the farmers. Turning agricultural land into a speculative asset risks increasing competition for land, encouraging land grabbing and concentrating ownership, while rewarding carbon projects that may not deliver genuinely climate benefits. Thank you.

21:28 - 21:44

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the ECR, I have the only request from Jana Nagyová. Ah, pardon, two requests, Jana Nagyová and Sander Smit. No other request, please.

21:44 - 22:53

Jana Nagyová

Thank you. Dear colleagues, two years ago we promised farmers credible European framework to reward carbon storage and emission reduction. Many of them already started work on it, as far fact is, the sooner we start, the more emissions we save. I understand the objections because methodology is not perfect at all. The act as we can see it still lack to real predictable European market for their effort.

But and but those who joined carbon programs years ago have waited up to two years for any payments and farmers who adopted good practices early must not be shut out by a rigid reading of additionality. So, objection unfortunately doesn't solve any of those problems. It means from my perspective further delays and risk pushing farmers towards private schemes. So the answer to imperfect methodology is review, not a veto. So therefore I urge Commission to swiftly come back with updated better version of the regulation but for the moment we not support this objection.

22:53 - 23:00

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Sanders-Smit from ECR, it's the first speaker from ECR so two minutes.

23:00 - 24:36

Sander Smit

Thank you very much, Chair. Farmers deserve a fair return for their contribution to climate protection. This delegated act in fact offers a voluntary, a voluntary European framework for carbon farming, including cover crops, peatland restoration and tree planting, hedges, biodiversity. It combines incentives with safeguards. Uncertainty reduces the credit credits awarded, there are liability rules when stored carbon is lost and group certification helps small farms, family farms to share monitoring and verification costs.

Farmers who acted early are also recognized.

I share our group's and the other groups' support for this approach. Rejecting this delegated act would delay certification and leave our farmers relying on fragmented private standards. We should keep these rules workable for our family farms in the European Union. Additional measurement requirements should not make participation by family farms unaffordable. Let us give our farmers a practical opportunity to earn additional sustainable income.

I therefore support the delegated act and will also vote against this objection because the objections of the Socialists, the Greens and Left are really a form of methodological maximalism. It would really exclude small farmers. So let's not reject this delegated act, let's support it, vote against this objection. Thank you very much.

24:36 - 24:42

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Last speaker, Lucie Barcier-Klein, for one minute please.

24:42 - 24:52

Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Nous avons critiqué ce règlement lors du mandat précédent et continuons de le critiquer. J'aimerais saluer pour une fois deux points de convergence.

24:52 - 25:42

Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain

C'est la lutte d'une part contre la spéculation foncière et d'autre part contre le changement indirect d'affectation des sols. Des ONG, certains syndicats agricoles et des rapports comme ceux du Comité des régions alertent sur les risques d'accaparement des terres agricoles et leur transformation en des actifs financiers fondés sur le carbone. C'est une dérive à signaler et à combattre. Quand on lit ce que vous reprochez au texte, la trop grande souplesse laissée aux exploitants en matière de certification, la faiblesse des critères d'additionnalité et d'intégrité environnementale, les risques de détournement et de fuite de carbone, etc. Pourquoi donc avoir soutenu ce texte en plénière ?

25:42 - 25:54

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now the floor to the Commission for five minutes. We have Mrs. Valeria Forlin, Deputy Head of Unit of CLIMA.C3.

25:54 - 30:55

Valeria FORLIN

Thank you Chair, honorable members. The Commission fully shares the Parliament's objectives mentioned so far. So carbon farming must deliver real and credible climate benefits while protecting biodiversity. At the same time, we need a framework that works in practice. If certification becomes too complex or too costly, farmers and land managers will simply not use it.

It's a robust and science-based framework that provides strong safeguards without creating disproportionate administrative burden. Let me briefly address the main concerns raised. First, on the credibility of the certified units. The methodologies propose a very robust approach to carbon models. They rely on the European Environment Agency to check the quality of all models used for certification.

So the delegated act strikes a balance.

And the methodologies are also conservative because uncertainty must always be assessed and must result in a smaller amount of certified units. But they do not impose deductions that would penalize operators on the basis of an hypothetical risk of indirect leakage emissions that cannot be robustly demonstrated today. Second, on additionality. The framework must support activities that need carbon finance. This is obvious.

But in this early phase of CRCF, we do not want to penalize early movers simply because they acted before all these implementing rules were fully in place. And that's why we propose a transitional arrangement, a transitional arrangement in the first years to ensure fair treatment for operators who have recently started carbon farming activities, while of course all these pioneers remain subject to the core additionality requirements. So additionality must still be demonstrated.

Third on permanence and liability. Of course, certified carbon removals must be protected against the risk of carbon being reversed into the atmosphere. Now without going into technical details, different carbon farming activities involve different types of risks and the methodologies are reflecting those differences and propose safeguards that are proportionate to the type of activity concerned, but every carbon removal reversal will be subject to liability. So this is a very important principle of every carbon credit program. Last on biodiversity.

Fighting biodiversity loss and climate change must go hand in hand. And that's why all carbon farming activity must deliver biodiversity co-benefits, but here again proportionality matters. If we require the costly and complex biodiversity evidence for each and every individual practice that operators do as part of a broader project, this would not only be excessively burdensome, it would actually discourage land managers from adopting a large number of practices. And this is exactly what we want to incentivize. So let me stress that we will continue to monitor the framework.

Several concerns raised by Parliament relate to risks that deserve attention, including possible impacts on land markets and land speculation.

But the Commission takes these concerns very seriously. We will learn from implementation, we will monitor developments, and where the evidence shows that adjustments are necessary, we will strengthen the methodologies accordingly. Because this delegated act is not the end of developing the European carbon farming project. It's just a starting point. Rejecting it would not solve methodological questions.

These will continue to evolve with science and implementation. It would instead delay a common European framework and prolong uncertainty for the operators that we want to mobilize. At the Commission, we are putting a lot of effort into creating a predictable and strong market for carbon farming action in the EU. We are promoting CRCF to European businesses. They are potential buyers and investors, and this is for them a credible and efficient way to achieve corporate climate targets.

They are very interested in buying carbon credits made in the EU, closer to their supply chains, their operations, and their customers. And every day we talk with project developers and certification schemes that are eagerly awaiting the entry into force of this delegated act to start implementing it on the ground.

They are ready to bring carbon farming payments to farmers and land managers who urgently need financial support to transition to more resilient practices and withstand the worst impacts of climate change. So our objective is therefore to put a credible system into operation as soon as possible as a basis for a strong carbon farming market in the EU. We will of course learn from its implementation, we will improve it where evidence demonstrates that this is needed. For these reasons, the Commission asks the Parliament not to support the objection and to allow the delegated act to enter into force. Thank you.

30:55 - 31:16

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now we can move to the next item, the item number five that regards the lead in gunshot. I leave the floor to the objector for four minutes, Pietro Fiocchi, you have the floor.

31:16 - 37:31

Pietro Fiocchi

Carissimo presidente, carissimi colleghi, vorrei spiegare bene la mia obiezione al regolamento della Commissione che vieta l'utilizzo del piombo nelle munizioni.

Innanzitutto, sono perfettamente conscio che il piombo è una sostanza tossica e che vada regolata. La mia obiezione è sul documento della Commissione, che è scritto malissimo, con delle lacune scientifiche e omissioni giuridiche e regolatorie molto importanti, tali da potenzialmente portare conseguenze estremamente negative ai cittadini europei e a un indebolimento dell'economia e dell'indipendenza geopolitica europea. Per informazione, io ho una formazione molto forte su questo argomento, avendo partecipato per oltre trentacinque anni fa alle discussioni sul divieto del piombo negli Stati Uniti e avendo utilizzato nella fabbricazione di munizioni milioni di tonnellate di piombo, bismuto, stagno, rame, ottone, plastica, acciaio, che per la maggior parte è stata riciclata più di una volta. Il documento della Commissione innanzitutto asserisce che ci sono molte alternative al piombo con caratteristiche tecniche e costi similari, e questo è falso. In realtà l'unico materiale che ha costi similari al piombo è l'acciaio.

Tutti gli altri hanno costi tra le tre e le venti volte superiore. Oltretutto, di alcuni di questi materiali citati non hanno una riserva mondiale sufficiente a coprire il fabbisogno, e alcuni di questi elementi sono controllati dalla Cina, per cui rendendo l'Europa ricattabile.

Per assurdo se dovessimo andare verso questi materiali, mettiamo il bismuto per esempio, creeremmo un'Europa dove solamente i ricchi possono andare a caccia. E gli stati membri dovranno assumere guardie forestali per pagate per fare il lavoro che oggi fanno i cacciatori nel controllo degli invasivi alloctoni e nocivi. Tecnicamente parlando con l'eccezione del tungsteno tutte le alternative hanno densità più bassa del piombo. Caratteristica che le rende poco efficienti balisticamente per la rapida perdita di energia. Inoltre alcune alternative, vedi il tungsteno e l'acciaio, sono troppo duri e non deformabili con la conseguenza che tendono a ferire la preda e a non ucciderla.

E la conseguenza è che l'animale morirà dissanguato ore o giorni dopo.

Ebbene io voglio chiedere a voi colleghi, dopo tutto il lavoro che abbiamo fatto per il benessere animali, se questa cosa sia accettabile. Per non parlare che poi le munizioni tendono a rimbalzare, munizioni di acciaio tendono a rimbalzare sulle rocce creando gravi pericoli e ferimenti con il rischio di moltiplicare gli incidenti e ne abbiamo avuto una casistica importante in Svezia quando avevano vietato il piombo. L'altro problema gravissimo, secondo me forse quello più grave del testo della Commissione, è il fatto che non menzioni che solamente alcuni stati europei sono membri del CIP, il Comitato Internazionale Permanente, che è un organo che testa le armi e le munizioni per garantire la sicurezza nell'utilizzo, stabilendo i massimi di pressioni e di velocità. Questo è un problema gravissimo per la sicurezza del tiratore perché le cartucce con pallini in acciaio, essendo per il problema della bassa densità, verranno prodotte nei paesi non aderenti al CIP con velocità più alte, per cui con pressioni più alte. Oltre il 20% dei fucili in circolazione in Europa non sono in grado di sopportare tale aumento di pressione ed esploderanno in faccia ai tiratori.

L'Europa deve essere armonizzata se non vogliamo avere sulla coscienza ferimenti e morti da questo cambiamento. L'altro argomento sono gli sport al tiro. Vi è una deroga ma accompagnata da misure sulla gestione ambientale dei campi di tiro molto molto severe.

Vi posso assicurare che ci saranno centinaia, se non migliaia di campi da tiro che chiuderanno perché non avranno le risorse economiche sufficienti per coprire le bonifiche e il controllo del territorio, per cui con conseguenze negative sugli sport del trap e dello skeet, del biathlon e il tiro a segno. Infine, considerando che le alte linee di produttività vengono usate sia per le munizioni civili che militari, e le militari sono escluse da questo regolamento, togliendo la parte civile avremo un effetto di aumento di costo del munizionamento militare e una diminuzione dell'immediata disponibilità delle stesse. Con la situazione geopolitica attuale non mi sembra il caso. Cari colleghi, se voi pensate che questo divieto colpisca solo la caccia e il tiro, e lo farà, cosa ne pensate della situazione nel caso che il conflitto ucraino dovesse allargarsi e noi non avremo le munizioni per rispondere? Ultimo punto, e poi smetto.

La Commissione totalmente ignora un altro problema ambientale enorme. Abolendo il piombo nelle munizioni civili e con la domanda in calo delle batterie al piombo tradizionali, l'Europa si troverà a dover gestire decine di migliaia di tonnellate di piombo ogni anno. Dove le mettiamo? Le buttiamo nel mare? Non c'è menzione di questo, di cosa faremo di tutta questa roba qua.

Potrei continuare per ore, ma mi fermo qua, ha ragione Presidente.

Chiudo, chiudo, mi appassiona l'argomento. Comunque chiedo ai miei colleghi di votare a favore della mia obiezione e di aiutarmi a indurre la Commissione a modificare la proposta per evitare perdite di vite umane, per armonizzare l'impianto giuridico europeo e per evitare gravi conseguenze ambientali, economiche e di dipendenze geopolitiche. So che molti gruppi politici hanno dato istruzioni di votare contro la mia obiezione, però io vi chiedo di agire secondo la vostra coscienza per evitare di essere corresponsabili di un disastro annunciato. Grazie.

37:31 - 37:38

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you, Mr. Fiocchi. Now the floor to the shadow, we start with the EPP, Manuela Ripa, two minutes.

37:38 - 40:00

Manuela Ripa

Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, I fully recognize that concerns have been raised by hunters, sport shooters and the ammunition industry, but many of these concerns relate to earlier versions of the proposal. And this is precisely the point. The Commission has responded to these concerns and substantially changed the proposal. The final text is much more targeted and proportionate.

First, it is not a general ban on lead ammunition. Bullets, slugs and airgun pellets are excluded. Military, defense and security users are outside the scope. This is particularly important in the current geopolitical situation. Europe's defense readiness is given by the Commission text.

Second, concerns about hunters and old firearms have been taken into account. There is a seven-year transition period giving hunters and manufacturers sufficient time to adapt. And historical firearms are exempted where suitable alternatives are not available. Third, sport shooting is not banned. Lead gunshot can continue to be used at shooting ranges with appropriate containment and recovery measures, allowing international competitions and training to continue.

We also hear concerns about cost, ballistic performance, ricochet and animal welfare. These concerns were part of the assessment. ECHA concluded that the restriction is justified and technically feasible alternatives are available. And we should not lose sight of why we are acting. Lead is highly toxic.

It contaminates soil and water, harms wildlife and poses risks to human health, particularly to children. The final proposal therefore strikes a reasonable balance between protecting health and the environment and addressing the practical concerns of hunters, sport shooters, industry and our defense sector. A majority of Member States supported this compromise.

We should not reopen a compromise that has already been substantially improved and made more proportionate. That is why we will vote against the objection and in favor of a finally phasing lead out of gunshots where safe and practical alternatives exist. Thank you very much.

40:00 - 40:04

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now for S&D, Christophe Clergeau.

40:04 - 42:03

Christophe Clergeau

Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, bonne soirée à toutes et à tous. Je partage beaucoup d'éléments qui ont été présentés par Madame Rippa à l'instant et je voudrais dire que nous n'avons pas été convaincus par les arguments de Monsieur Fiocchi. Comme l'a dit Manuela Rippa, la décision qui a été prise est parfaitement proportionnée et à l'issue d'une évaluation approfondie du dossier qui a pris en compte l'ensemble des inquiétudes. Les alternatives existent, Monsieur Fiocchi l'a dit lui-même, l'acier est utilisé depuis des décennies au Danemark, aux Pays-Bas, en Flandre, à un prix comparable, une efficacité équivalente. Le risque de ricochet ne se retrouve pas dans les statistiques des accidents là où le plomb est interdit depuis longtemps.

Le coût reste limité, moins de 30 euros par an pour un chasseur sur un budget de plusieurs milliers d'euros lié à cette activité de loisir. Et tous les différents secteurs sont soit exclus, soit ont plusieurs années, sept ans pour les stands de tir, pour s'adapter. Et face à cela, que savons-nous du plomb ?

Nous savons tout du plomb. Nous savons qu'il n'existe aucun seuil de sécurité pour la santé et qu'il affecte le développement neurologique des enfants, les reins, la pression artérielle. Nous parlons pardon de gibier que les familles mettent dans leur assiette et d'oiseaux qui par millions meurent d'empoisonnement. Et ce n'est pas seulement la science qui parle. Les fabricants de munitions eux-mêmes, la AFEMS, reconnaissent un cadre réaliste.

La Fédération européenne pour la chasse et la conservation, la FACE, juge ce texte acceptable et estime qu'une objection n'est pas la bonne voie. Quand même les chasseurs et les industriels ne demandent pas le rejet, pourquoi devrions-nous nous-mêmes l'envisager ? Chers collègues, protégeons la santé de nos enfants et notre environnement, votons contre cette objection. Merci.

42:03 - 42:07

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Patriots, Mathilde Androuët.

42:07 - 43:32

Mathilde Androuët

Merci. Dans le texte que conteste l'objection de Monsieur Fiocchi, la Commission veut restreindre fortement l'usage du plomb dans les munitions de chasse et dans les activités de tir sportif.

Or la Commission reconnaît elle-même qu'elle n'est pas même certaine que des volumes suffisants de munitions alternatives seront disponibles. C'est précisément pour cela qu'elle a déjà dû repousser la transition de cinq à sept ans. Et pourtant, elle veut imposer cette substitution sans en avoir sérieusement mesuré les conséquences : hausse du prix des munitions, pardon, incompatibilité avec certaines armes, performances balistiques, coût de mise aux normes des stands de tir, mais aussi dépendance accrue envers des fournisseurs extérieurs, notamment chinois pour la grenaille d'acier. Il faut aussi regarder les conséquences industrielles : des filières civiles et militaires partagent des lignes de production, des fournisseurs, des machines et des compétences. Affaiblir la production civile, c'est aussi perdre, prendre le risque d'affaiblir notre capacité à produire davantage de munitions lorsque la situation stratégique l'exige.

Et derrière ces décisions, il y a des chasseurs, des clubs, des armuriers, des PME. En France, la chasse reste une activité populaire forte de cinq millions d'adeptes qui participent à la régulation de la faune et à la protection des cultures. Tous ne pourront pas absorber de nouveaux surcoûts. La cohérence et le sens des réalités nous amènent donc à soutenir pleinement cette objection.

43:32 - 43:37

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Greens, Jutta Paulus.

43:37 - 43:46

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for already mapping out a lot of the things that are on my list.

43:47 - 45:03

Jutta Paulus

I do want to repeat: there is no safe level for lead. It has overall only ill effects on human health. And lead in ammunition is the largest unregulated source of lead emissions to the environment. And as colleagues have already said, there was a previous restriction dossier which the Commission had brought forward, which would have reduced 1.5 million tons of lead emissions over 20 years. So what we are seeing now is a proposal which would reduce only one third of the original proposal.

Also because the transitional period is extended from 18 months to seven years, there's a lot of derogations. And on the one hand, I would, I'm tempted to say we're doing too little and too late. But of course, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. And I'm very much, I very much know, Pietro, that you're a top expert when it comes to ammunition, as everyone can see from your CV. But I have to tell you, even the hunting association, even the manufacturers of sporting ammunition now support the restriction which the Commission has brought forward.

45:03 - 45:23

And therefore, the hunters are even afraid that if this restriction doesn't go through, there will be another one which will be stronger again. So they are calling us to vote in favor, or not to vote for your objection, but to let the delegated act pass, which my group will do. Thank you.

45:23 - 45:27

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Left, Anja Hazekamp.

45:27 - 45:31

Anja Hazekamp

Dank u, heer voorzitter.

45:31 - 45:35

Anja Arndt

Es gibt in Deutschland Schützenvereine, die älter sind...

45:35 - 45:42

Pierfrancesco Maran

Sorry, Anja Hazekamp first.

45:42 - 47:36

Anja Hazekamp

Oh, sorry. I will speak in Dutch. Dank u wel, voorzitter. Het gebruik van het zware metaal lood in jachtmunitie is rampzalig voor de gezondheid van mensen, dieren en het milieu. En na jaren van discussies over ontwerpmaatregelen die geen meerderheid haalden, zou deze nieuwe verordening in ieder geval een deel van de verspreiding van lood in het milieu kunnen aanpakken.

En natuurlijk probeert de heer Fiocchi de strengere regels die nu op tafel liggen te blokkeren en heeft hij een bezwaar ingediend.

Gezien zijn belangen in de jachtsector, hij jaagt zelf ook, zagen we dit al van mijlenver aankomen. Het is een bezwaar vol emotie, vol nepnieuws en flagrante leugens, net zoals bij zijn eerdere bezwaar tegen de beperking van lood in visserij. Het grappige is zelfs dat zijn eigen Europese jagersvrienden hem niet steunen. Zelfs de jagers zijn klaar voor de invoering van deze maatregel. En meneer Fiocchi noemt een verbod op jagen met lood zelfs dieronvriendelijk.

Een verbod op jagen met lood dieronvriendelijk? Maar als je nou echt om dieren geeft, dan schiet je ze niet voor lol dood, want dat is pas dieronvriendelijk. Dus ik verzoek de Commissie om alstublieft te blijven werken aan een volledig verbod op lood in alle munitie. Het voorkomen van blootstelling aan lood en verontreinigingen van het milieu is een kernonderdeel van de One Health-benadering die essentieel is voor het waarborgen van de gezondheid van dieren, mensen en ecosystemen. En ik roep alle collega's op om samen met mij tegen dit bezwaar te stemmen.

Dank u wel.

47:36 - 47:41

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Last speaker as shadow, Anja Hazekamp from GUE/NGL.

47:41 - 49:31

Anja Arndt

Danke, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich werde auf Deutsch sprechen.

Es gibt in Deutschland Schützenvereine, die älter sind als der Dreißigjährige Krieg. Sie haben Seuchen und Kaiserreiche überstanden. Die Kommission will ihnen jetzt Bleischrot bei Jagd und Schießsport verbieten. Niemand bestreitet, dass Bleieinträge Umwelt und Gesundheit belasten können, aber daraus folgt nicht automatisch, dass eine einheitliche EU-Beschränkung der richtige Weg ist. Der Entwurf wurde verbessert, die Übergangsfrist beträgt sieben Jahre, Büchsenmunition und Flintenlaufgeschosse sind ausgenommen.

Doch für Jäger bleibt eine praktische Frage: Sie müssen regelmäßig mit der Munition trainieren können, die sie später verwenden. Der Deutsche Jagdverband weist darauf hin, dass bleifreie Schrote auf vielen bestehenden Schießständen derzeit gar nicht zugelassen sind. Das sagt nicht die ESN, sondern der Deutsche Jagdverband. Im Schießstand dürfen sie nur mit Bleischrot üben, im Revier müssen sie dann aber bleifrei jagen. Sie trainieren mit der einen Munition und treffen müssen sie dann mit einer anderen.

Oder sie treffen dann eben nicht, dann liegt der Fasan angeschossen im Unterholz und das wollen wir nicht. Die siebenjährige Übergangsfrist schafft die nötige Infrastruktur nicht von selbst. Umbauten, Genehmigungen und Kosten treffen gerade kleinere Vereine.

Für uns als ESN geht es auch um die Souveränität. Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen strengere nationale Regeln beibehalten, können aber keine weniger weitreichende eigene Lösung wählen. Politisch lehnen wir deshalb grundsätzlich ab, dass die EU Jagd- und Schießsport europaweit einheitlich regelt. Deshalb unterstützen wir den Einspruch gegen diese EU-weite Beschränkung.

49:31 - 49:44

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you for the catch-the-eye. We have remotely connected with us Peter Liese.

49:44 - 51:25

Peter Liese

Yeah, I will speak German. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I had a small intervention on my eye and my doctor said you better don't travel to Strasbourg on Monday, and you should always listen to the doctor. That's why I'm here online, now in German. Ich unterstütze die Kommission an dieser Stelle.

Ich danke aber gleichfalls Pietro Fiocchi für sein Engagement. Pietro weiß das, wir haben jahrelang an diesem Rechtsakt gearbeitet. Und die Ursprungsideen von der ECHA, die waren wirklich schrecklich. Da waren viele Dinge verboten, obwohl zum Beispiel auf Schießständen oder beim traditionellen Schützenfest gar kein Blei in die Umwelt kommt.

Wir haben da hart gearbeitet und ich bin mit dem Ergebnis zufrieden. Ich bedanke mich bei der Kommission, dass sie alle sachgerechten Einwände übernommen hat. Und ich glaube, weder die Position von Frau Arndt, die sagt, die Schützenvereine werden gefährdet - die Schützenvereine haben mir geschrieben, wir sind zufrieden, vielen Dank - auch die europäischen Jäger haben gesagt, dass sie jetzt zufrieden sind, noch die Position der Linken, dass man ein Totalverbot haben sollte, sind hier angemessen. Die Kommission hat nach langem Hin und Her den richtigen Mittelweg gefunden. Blei ist schädlich, wenn es in die Natur gelangt, aber all die Anwendungsbereiche, wo es gar nicht in die Natur gelangt, zum Beispiel bei traditionellen Schützenfesten oder am Schießstand, da braucht man kein Verbot, das wäre unverhältnismäßig gewesen.

Die große Mehrheit der Betroffenen ist zufrieden und deswegen bin ich es auch.

51:25 - 51:44

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you, unfortunately no translation, so we will ask some German speaker if you were in favor or against for Mr. Fiocchi.

So, Sergio Berlato for ECR for one minute.

51:44 - 53:05

Sergio Berlato

Sono il presidente nazionale dell'Associazione per la Cultura Rurale, un'associazione italiana riconosciuta e iscritta nel registro della trasparenza a Bruxelles. La nostra associazione annovera numerose decine di migliaia di iscritti. Tra il 2025 e il 2026 la nostra associazione ha promosso un'indagine conoscitiva tra i propri iscritti, tra i loro familiari, tra i loro conoscenti. Abbiamo chiesto se qualcuno di loro avesse mai avuto sintomi di avvelenamento o di intossicazione da piombo. Il risultato di questa indagine conoscitiva è stato questo: nessuno tra gli intervistati e nessuno tra i loro parenti o conoscenti ha mai denunciato o manifestato sintomi di intossicazione o avvelenamento da piombo.

Eppure molte di queste persone mangiano selvaggina da alcuni decenni. Siamo autorizzati a nutrire grossi dubbi sulla credibilità degli studi finanziati dalla Commissione, secondo i quali il piombo usato nelle munizioni per la caccia rappresenterebbe un pericolo grave per la salute delle persone e per l'intero ecosistema. Contemporaneamente la Commissione finanzia e fornisce centinaia di miliardi di armamenti che, oltre ad uccidere milioni di persone, avvelenano l'ambiente e distruggono l'ecosistema.

Alla faccia della coerenza.

53:05 - 53:09

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Last speaker, Esther Herranz García.

53:09 - 55:32

Esther Herranz García

Gracias, presidente. Para mí este es un asunto verdaderamente importante. El tema del tiro deportivo y la caza es una actividad que mueve a muchísimas personas en Europa y en todo el mundo, pero nos preocupan los europeos. Y tras año y medio de trabajo con el sector y con los países de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, creo que se han conseguido cosas importantes. Por ejemplo, de esa primera propuesta de la Comisión en la que se prohibía el plomo en cartuchos de perdigones así de una forma tan brutal, se incluían las balas y esto ya hemos conseguido que quede fuera.

En cuanto a los plazos, la verdad es que el sector nos estaba pidiendo diez años y al final el siete, siete más los dos años que ya se ha tramitado esta negociación, al final son nueve. Es casi lo que nos pedía el sector al principio y es más del doble de lo que ofrecía la Comisión Europea para la adaptación del sector.

Yo creo que ahora con esta con esta cifra del siete más los dos de negociación, que damos tiempo a cazadores, armeros y a fabricantes para hacer una transición con suficiente margen y el texto ya, bueno, se ha aprobado en junio, pues yo creo que satisface. No es que nos satisfaga a nosotros, que seríamos los menos importantes en este en esta consideración, sino que la misma Federación Europea de Caza rechaza las objeciones porque está contenta con la propuesta. Yo he consultado a la Federación Española de Caza, que también la apoya, apoya la propuesta alcanzada, apoya el acuerdo y están en contra de las objeciones. Y ¿por qué? Pues porque les da miedo que la Comisión Europea tenga que empezar de cero si tumbamos el texto aprobado en junio y claro, no tienen garantía ninguna de que se mantenga lo conseguido, es más, puede ser mucho más restrictivo una nueva propuesta, mucho más dura, incluso las balas volver otra vez dentro.

Por tanto nos piden que apoyemos el acuerdo alcanzado en junio y no apoyemos estas objeciones porque creen que la propuesta es lo suficientemente razonable. Así pues, eso es lo que haremos atendiendo a nuestros electores y atendiendo a los ciudadanos europeos. Gracias.

55:32 - 55:40

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the Commission. We have Mrs. Andrea Pantazi, DG GROW, Head of Unit F1.

55:40 - 01:00:22

Florina-Andreea Pantazi

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. And thank you for giving me the floor, thank you for the possibility to contribute to the debate and address some of the concerns that were raised in the objection. I will start first with the necessity and with the proportionality. And I apologize in advance, I think that I will have to repeat and confirm many of the things that were said tonight, starting with the topic of this objection and the topic of our restriction, which is lead.

Yes, lead is highly toxic. Yes, there is no safe exposure level for lead. It is classified toxic for reproduction 1A, which is the highest hazard category under EU legislation. It pollutes our water, it pollutes our soil, and we get exposed to it because it is present in the environment, and we get exposed to it because some of us eat game meat. So the necessity is there.

Now, when it comes to the proportionality, this restriction, and this is the case for every similar restriction we do under REACH, this restriction is based on solid, robust scientific assessment from the European Chemicals Agency.

Both committees, the Risk Assessment Committee, the Socio-Economic Assessment Committee, confirmed that you have an unacceptable risk to health and environment, that this restriction is the only appropriate and EU-wide possible way in order to address this risk, and last, that this restriction is cost-effective and it's proportionate to the expected benefits. Now, having said that, the Commission, as it was said tonight, mindful of the changing geopolitical environment, went a step further into increasing and further strengthening the proportionality. We have now a restriction that covers the use and in certain cases the placing on the market of lead in gunshot. We have excluded bullets, airgun pellets, slugs. Why?

Because we do not want even the smallest indirect impact on our defense capacity, on our defense preparedness, and this is done. Now, when I look at the concerns in the objection, you mentioned sport shooting. Sport shooting with lead bullets will continue as it happens today. Sport shooting with lead gunshot is also derogated, but of course subject to containment and recovery measures, because we need to be able to curb the high emissions that are coming from this use. However, we are giving Member States full discretion into choosing the most appropriate containment measure in every Member State according to the necessity and to the needs of every sport shooting facility.

Now, you also mentioned the alternatives. Alternatives exist. They are already widely used. In certain cases, they are safe, and in certain cases, they even offer better performance than classic guns. You mentioned animal welfare.

No, the use of steel gunshot will not lead to unethical killing of animals. It will not lead to animal suffering. I'm sorry, it is rather a question of shooting skills and choosing the appropriate caliber for hunting. Which brings me to hunters. Hunters have seven years for a transitional period.

It's much longer than what the agency recommended us to do. So they have time to adjust, and the adjustment will be smooth. And when it comes to the costs. The costs are affordable. And the number here is 30 euros per year.

And this covers the cost of the steel gunshot, it covers the testing of the gun, and it covers replacement of the gun when necessary. I will not mention now the athletes, I think we are fine with this, everybody understood. European athletes remain competitive, Member States will continue to be able to host Olympic Games, we will be able to continue hosting international events. Firearm, traditional firearms are also protected. Now, in conclusion, we are having here a restriction that is based on a robust scientific assessment showing that there is an uncontrolled risk, unacceptable risk that needs to be addressed.

This restriction is proportionate to the expected benefits and it fully complies with the legal requirements under the REACH regulation. Thank you.

01:00:22 - 01:00:41

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now we move to the item number six, that is an objection regarding certain botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives. The objector is Pascal Arimont. You have four minutes.

01:00:41 - 01:04:31

Pascal Arimont

Sehr geehrter Herr Vorsitzender, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, vielen Dank. Ich möchte kurz erklären, worum es geht, und bei diesen Fachbegriffen ist das nicht ganz so einfach, um das auch zu verstehen. Es geht darum, dass die Kommission bestimmte pflanzliche Zubereitungen vollständig verbieten möchte, eigentlich schon hat, aber jetzt auch noch verbieten möchte.

Ganz konkret geht es unter anderem um Zubereitungen aus bestimmten Rhabarberarten, die schon seit Jahrzehnten bei Verdauungsstörungen verwendet werden. Mit unserem Einwand sagen wir nicht, dass diese Produkte zu 100 % in allen möglichen Formen sicher sind. Und wir stellen auch die Arbeit der EFSA nicht infrage. Das ist ganz wesentlich hier bei dieser Objection. Aber wir sagen, für ein vollständiges Verbot braucht es eine klare und ausreichende Begründung.

Die EFSA hat festgestellt, dass sich auf Grundlage der vorgelegten Daten die Sicherheit dieser Zubereitungen nicht in allen Formen und in jeglicher Form bestätigen lässt. Das ist ein wichtiger Befund, aber es ist nicht dasselbe wie die Feststellung, dass diese Zubereitungen gesundheitsschädlich sind. Und genau hier wird es entscheidend. Die Kommission selbst schreibt in ihrer Antwort vom 2. Oktober an sechs Abgeordnete von uns, dass ein Stoff beschränkt oder verboten wird, wenn eine schädliche Wirkung auf die Gesundheit festgestellt worden ist. Und genau diese Feststellung fehlt hier.

Trotzdem zieht die Kommission die weitestgehende Konsequenz: ein vollständiges Verbot. Und zwar unabhängig davon, wie hoch die Konzentration ist, wie das Produkt verwendet wird oder für wen es bestimmt ist. Genau diese pauschale Maßnahme kritisiert auch unsere Objection.

Deshalb stellen wir eine sehr einfache Frage: Muss es wirklich ein vollständiges Verbot sein? Die hier anzuwendende Vitaminverordnung kennt auch andere Möglichkeiten. Man kann Höchstmengen festlegen, man kann die Verwendung einschränken, man kann Warnhinweise vorschreiben oder bestimmte Verbrauchergruppen besonders schützen. Die Kommission hat aus unserer Sicht nicht ausreichend erklärt, warum solche gezielten Maßnahmen nicht ausreichen würden. Genau diese Prüfung verlangen wir mit unserem Einwand.

Ein vollständiges Verbot hätte und hat konkrete Folgen für einen Sektor der Nahrungsergänzungsmittel. Das sind EU-weit über 100.000 Jobs sowie Landwirte und Kräuteranbauer, die ihre Produktion und ihre Produkte entsprechend umstellen müssen. Hinzu kommt, und das ist auch sehr wichtig, auch rechtlich ist die Sache noch nicht abgeschlossen. Man hat gegen dieses Verbot geklagt. Man hat auch in erster Instanz gewonnen.

Die Kommission ist dagegen in Berufung gegangen. Und genau dieses Verfahren läuft gerade noch vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof. Das Verfahren vor dem Gerichtshof läuft also weiter, und dennoch hat die Kommission das Verbot ausgesprochen. Deshalb, in unseren Augen, sollten wir heute nichts überstürzen.

Wir sollten zumindest abwarten, was der Europäische Gerichtshof dazu sagen wird. Ich glaube, das dient auch der Rechtssicherheit. Und unser Einwand, diese Objection erlaubt kein unsicheres Produkt. Es sagt auch nicht, dass diese Produkte harmlos sind. Es sagt nur, bevor wir ein vollständiges Verbot beschließen, muss die Kommission zeigen, dass dieses Verbot wirklich notwendig und gut begründet ist.

Deshalb bitte ich Sie um Ihre Zustimmung. Wir brauchen eine aktuelle wissenschaftliche Bewertung. Wir brauchen Klarheit über die offenen Fragen, auch rechtlich. Und wir müssen ernsthaft prüfen, ob gezieltere Maßnahmen denselben Schutz für die Verbraucher erreichen könnten. Vielen Dank.

01:04:31 - 01:04:34

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Socialist S&D, Christophe Clergeau.

01:04:34 - 01:06:10

Christophe Clergeau

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, dear colleagues. Dear Pascal Arimont. People buying herbal products expect them to be safe. A natural origin or long history of use cannot replace scientific evidence.

For the plant preparations covered by this proposal, EFSA identified concerns about possible damage to DNA and could not establish their safety.

I recognize the legal questions raised following the General Court's judgment. The Commission must ensure that its measures respect the law and are properly justified. But those questions do not resolve the health concerns. The Commission has indicated that alternatives are available for the relevant uses. So, the question we have to answer is: is it useful to take any risk when alternatives do exist?

Our priority should be to protect consumers while ensuring that the measures are legally sound. And just recall that we know so few about all the cumulative or cocktail effects of the different substances we are exposed to. And when it's possible to avoid a risk with alternatives, it is a good choice to do. I therefore support the Commission's proposed prohibition, will vote against this objection, and encourage you to do the same.

01:06:10 - 01:06:16

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Greens, Jutta Paulus.

01:06:16 - 01:08:11

Jutta Paulus

Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich werde auch auf Deutsch sprechen, nachdem Pascal das eben so getan hat.

Pascal, ich bin ja Apothekerin, ne? Und ich kann mich noch gut erinnern, dass häufiger Kundinnen und Kunden in der Apotheke standen und wollten etwas zum Abführen, also ne, bei Verstopfung, aber geben Sie mir doch bitte was Pflanzliches. Ich habe da was gelesen. Und das hat dann immer eine längere Zeit gedauert, sie darüber aufzuklären, dass diese scheinbar so harmlosen pflanzlichen Stoffe in diesem Fall wirklich die schlechtere Wahl sind. Und was, ich bin jetzt seit gut 30 Jahren aus der Apotheke raus, also was damals nicht falsch war, ist heute leider immer noch nicht falsch.

Und heute wissen wir sogar noch mehr über diese Substanzen. Und die traurige Wahrheit ist ja, dass diese Untersuchungen, die gemacht wurden, zeigen, diese Stoffe haben genotoxische Wirkungen, können also Krebserzeugen. Und dann gibt es kein, keinen Schwellenwert, ne? Also dann reicht im Prinzip ein Molekül, um das Genom entsprechend zu schädigen.

Und angesichts der Tatsache, dass es für den Einsatz dieser pflanzlichen Extrakte oder Kräuter oder wie auch immer sehr viele sichere Alternativen gibt, finde ich, dürfen wir unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger da nicht länger in Unsicherheit lassen und sollten auf jeden Fall dafür sorgen, dass das so schnell wie möglich vom Markt verschwindet. Sie haben zu Recht von den 100.000 Arbeitsplätzen gesprochen, aber kurze Zeit darauf eben, ja, dann müssen die ihre Rezepturen umstellen. Richtig, das muss man machen, wenn man feststellt, das ist gar nicht gut, was ich da drin habe. Und genau das hätte man eigentlich von den Unternehmen auch erwarten können, ohne dass die Kommission dafür tätig werden muss.

01:08:11 - 01:08:29

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. I have no further requests from colleagues, so I'll give the floor to the Commission. We have Anastasia Alvizou, Deputy Head of Unit E1, General Food Law, Food Waste and Food Information to Consumers, DG SANTE. Please, you have the floor.

01:08:29 - 01:13:45

Anastasia Alvizou

Thank you, Chair, honorable members. Allow me to explain why the Commission considers the draft regulation on hydroxyanthracene derivatives fully justified and why we believe the proposed objection should not be supported. First, on the Commission's implementing powers.

The draft measure is firmly based on the Article 8 procedure of the Regulation 1925/2006 governing the addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances to foods. This procedure, the Article 8 procedure, is specifically designed to ensure a high level of public health protection where safety concerns arise in relation to substances added to food. In the Commission's view, this framework must necessarily cover not only isolated substances in the abstract, but also preparations containing these substances. Otherwise, the whole regulation would be undermined as substances of concern could be continued placed on the market in the form of preparations, botanical preparations. In other words, if preparations containing the relevant hydroxyanthracene derivatives could not be addressed, the spirit and the practical effectiveness of Article 8 would be defeated.

Second, on the ongoing court proceedings. It is important to stress that the Commission has appealed the General Court judgments concerning Regulation 2021/468. Those judgments are therefore not enforceable while the appeal is pending.

Moreover, Article 8 of Regulation 1925/2006 placed the Commission under a clear legal obligation to act once the scrutiny period has expired. We cannot simply suspend implementation of the legislation and wait for the final outcome of the litigation. We must continue to discharge our responsibilities under the regulation, especially when public health concerns have been raised, and this is exactly what this draft measure does. Now, on the level of health protection and proportionality. The Commission fully stands behind the scientific assessment of EFSA, given in 2017, but also confirmed in 2024.

EFSA concluded that the botanicals concerned contain hydroxyanthracene derivatives, substances shown to be genotoxic and carcinogenic, and that these botanicals must therefore be regarded as raising a concern for genotoxicity. EFSA could not establish their safety for use in food. Where substances used in foods are carcinogenic and genotoxic, the Commission has a duty to act.

We cannot accept that foods, including in food supplements, expose consumers to such risks. And here I would like also to clarify that actually during manufacture, hydroxyanthracene derivatives can be removed from the botanical preparations through a series of filtration processes, resulting in products that contain those substances only at trace levels as impurities. So producers can continue producing those food supplements, but they have to invest in removing these carcinogenic substances. So overall, the draft regulation is a necessary and proportional response to ensure the high level of public health protection required under Union food law. Fourth, on the comparison with medicinal products.

Medicines and food are distinct product categories that require distinct management. Medicinal products are used to treat disease, often under medical supervision, subject to pharmacovigilance, and while a certain level of risk is always accepted in view of the therapeutic benefit. But food is different. Consumers are entitled to expect that food is safe. Food are not intended to treat illnesses, nor are they accompanied by the same safeguards that exist for medicines.

For that reason, the existence of certain medicinal uses of preparations containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives cannot justify their presence in food. Honorable Chair, honorable members, when it comes to substances used in food where genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are at issue and safety cannot be established, we cannot look away. Our duty is clear: we must act to protect consumers. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the objection should be supported. Thank you.

01:13:45 - 01:14:06

Pierfrancesco Maran

Clear at the end. So, last objection is the item number seven regarding monacolins from red yeast rice. The objection is presented by Esther de Lange García. You have four minutes.

01:14:06 - 01:18:16

Esther Herranz García

Muchísimas gracias, señor presidente.

Bueno, para quien todavía no se haya leído este tema, la monacolina K es un componente activo presente en la levadura de arroz rojo que se lleva utilizando en la Unión Europea por más de 30 años, tanto en complementos alimentarios como en la ayuda al control efectivo del colesterol malo, el LDL. La Comisión, tomando como base unos análisis de la agencia de la EFSA sobre riesgos potenciales para la salud humana, nos ha propuesto una modificación del reglamento el 1925 de 2006 y esto implicaría su completa prohibición. Esta decisión se produce cuando todavía existen asuntos judiciales en curso que les pueden afectar a esta decisión de una manera directa. En noviembre de 2024 el Tribunal General anuló una serie de disposiciones relativas a la prohibición de los derivados de hidroxiantraceno que constituyen el mismo tipo de preparados que la levadura de arroz rojo. Así que en estos momentos nos encontramos a la espera de una resolución inminente, inminente por parte del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

La monacolinas es un caso similar y, por tanto, una prohibición ahora puede provocar la misma reacción dentro de nada, mañana mismo, generando inseguridad jurídica en el sector. Por eso, junto con el señor Fiocchi de ECR, he presentado una objeción conjunta a esta decisión de la Comisión de prohibir las monacolinas de levadura de arroz rojo. La objeción no cuestiona ni pone en duda en ningún caso el trabajo de la EFSA.

Sus recomendaciones tampoco y la metodología de su trabajo tampoco, estamos de acuerdo con todo ello. Lo que queremos que quede claro es que la EFSA es nuestra agencia de expertos independientes en salud alimentaria y respetamos su criterio. Lo que pasa es que hay que presentar esta objeción porque es una forma de proceder contra la forma de proceder de la Comisión Europea y la decisión de prohibir el uso de una sustancia justo antes del fallo definitivo de una sentencia judicial que le afecta. Consideramos que la seguridad jurídica es uno de los pilares fundamentales sobre los que se sustenta la Unión Europea y que se debe respetar. Y el sector también tiene que tener seguridad jurídica porque estamos, hemos hablado de un sector industrial europeo.

Además existen otros motivos que deberían tenerse en cuenta antes de una completa prohibición. Desde la EFSA, desde que la EFSA completó sus análisis científicos han salido a la luz nuevas evidencias y estudios sobre su seguridad y esto también habría que analizarlo. No para prejuzgar los resultados anteriores, sino para que la decisión final se tome con toda la información disponible.

Así también sería interesante que se consideraran nuevas restricciones en vez de prohibiciones absolutas. Como comenté al principio, la monacolina K se ha utilizado en la Unión para controlar el colesterol durante décadas con resultados muy positivos para la salud cardíaca de los ciudadanos europeos. El enfoque de riesgo cero que se aplica, que aplica la Comisión Europea para casos como este, en el que la propia sustancia tiene efectos positivos sobre la salud, puede ir en contra de otras estrategias como el plan de enfermedades cardiovasculares o el plan para unos corazones sanos. Así que en este sentido habría que preguntarse si el principio de proporcionalidad justificaría la prohibición completa. Por todo esto, yo pido el apoyo al resto de colegas para esta objeción, no para poner en cuestión las conclusiones o recomendaciones de la EFSA, sino para solicitar una pausa hasta el fallo definitivo del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión y garantizar la seguridad jurídica que dará a la EFSA tiempo para analizar toda la información existente y que no pudo hacer durante el periodo de consultas porque todavía no estaba a su disposición.

Gracias.

01:18:16 - 01:18:21

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you.

For S&D Christophe Clergeau for two minutes.

01:18:21 - 01:20:18

Christophe Clergeau

Yes. I have a political problem because if it's possible for anybody to go to the court and then if there is something in front of the court then we have to ask the Commission to postpone any decision on the basis of scientific evidence, it would be a mess in European Union in term of product regulation of protection of health. So it's the second time my colleagues are balancing the legal certainty and the health issues. We have to take on board as a political priority the health issue and I would like really to encourage everybody to have a look to the exposome approach. You had the STOA report here.

You had the presentation in ENVI committee one year after the STOA report of new development of the science. Now we clearly know that low doses, cumulative aspects, cocktail effects are really important to bring to new NCDs, to new cancer, to new respiratory disease, to new degenerative disease.

So when it's possible to ban or to highly restrict a product which has a level of danger, it's exactly the decision we have to take. And then, once again, EFSA could not establish that doses below 3 milligrams of monacolins per day are safe or identify a dose that would raise no safety concerns. So the Commission has also indicated that alternatives are available for cholesterol management, so consumers should not have to bear an unresolved health risk and we have to choose the protection of health. So I therefore support again the proposed prohibition and will vote against the objection. Thank you.

01:20:18 - 01:20:33

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you, for ECR Pietro Fiocchi.

01:20:33 - 01:22:43

Pietro Fiocchi

Chiaramente sostengo questa obiezione.

La mia collega ha già spiegato molto bene, io volevo sottolineare un concetto molto importante perché la monacolina K è molto importante per mantenere sotto controllo il colesterolo e noi sappiamo benissimo che l'ipercolesterolemia è uno dei principali fattori di rischio per le malattie cardiovascolari che è il numero uno, il killer numero uno in Europa dei cittadini europei. Per cui prima di andare a vietare completamente bisognerebbe vedere se ci sono delle altre soluzioni, valutarne le quantità, dare migliori informazioni e via dicendo. Allora, non tocco la parte legale, avrei dovuto farlo ma mi sembra che i miei colleghi l'abbiano già toccata abbastanza bene, per cui quella la lascio stare anche se sicuramente è un punto molto importante di questo. Ma il solo fatto che EFSA, e io stimo tantissimo questa agenzia, abbia deciso che ci sono potenzialmente dei problemi e saltare direttamente a un divieto totale mi sembra veramente esagerato perché ci sono anche delle vie di mezzo e ci sono anche tutta una serie di altre procedure da seguire. Io vorrei evitare che, sapete benissimo, tanta gente in Europa che si rifiuta di prendere medicine sul colesterolo e preferisce prendere degli integratori considerati naturali, che si rivolgano a dei prodotti meno controllati o non controllati da dei paesi extra-UE.

Per cui niente, io vorrei, partendo dalle considerazioni scientifiche di EFSA che sono sacre, e partendo dalla salute dei cittadini europei che sono sacre anche loro, non passare direttamente al divieto totale, ma avere un approccio più graduale e, appunto, un pochino più nei dettagli. E vi chiedo di votare a favore di questa objection. Grazie.

01:22:43 - 01:22:48

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. For the Greens, Jutta Paulus.

01:22:48 - 01:24:22

Jutta Paulus

Yes. Thank you very much, Chair, and I found it a bit difficult to follow. Pietro, you might not know that Monacolin K is identical to Lovastatin. Lovastatin is a drug which your doctor can prescribe to you in an exact dosage, without any secondary components which are of course present in the red yeast rice.

So we have an alternative, an alternative which is tested, where patients are under constant supervision by a doctor who is looking at their blood values, who's looking whether he can find any, any side effects, which is of course not the case when you have a, let's say, not so well-regulated product like red yeast rice. So EFSA assessed the data which they got, they reiterated their concerns from 2018, and how can we justify rejecting the Commission's proposal when the EFSA opinion of 2025 confirms the concerns that they had seven years earlier? So my firm belief is if you have a cholesterol level which has to be treated, it should be treated in an organized, controlled manner and not with something where no one really knows how much substance is in there and what are the side effects of the secondary ingredients. Thank you.

01:24:22 - 01:24:25

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you, for the Left, Anja Hazekamp.

01:24:25 - 01:24:37

Speaker 38

Yes, thank you, Chair. I have to admit, I am confused. When we as Left members... Please, colleague, enter in the room, respect for the speaker. Thank you.

01:24:37 - 01:26:41

Anja Hazekamp

I'm confused. When we as Left members, out of concern for the health of humans, animals and the environment, object to measures from the Commission that would allow dangerous pesticides like glyphosate to remain on the market, or that would raise maximum residue limits of other dangerous pesticides like flupyradifurone, we always get the same argument from the members of the EPP. EFSA says it is safe, so we follow EFSA. But when EFSA identifies concerns for health and the Commission is acting on that, we should all support that. Favoring company interests is always the EPP's and ECR's modus operandi, but it is really reaching absurd levels here.

I find it inconsistent and irresponsible. You should not gamble with people's health to please the industry lobby, and in my mind, that is exactly what the EPP is doing here. If there are scientific uncertainties, the precautionary principle tells us to take protective action. And as not all of you may have read the EFSA conclusion on monacolin K, let me read them out to you.

The NDA panel reiterates the concerns of the ANS panel that exposure to monacolin K from red yeast rice at intake levels as low as 3 milligrams per day could lead to severe adverse effects on musculoskeletal system, including rhabdomyolysis, and on the liver. And we will definitely not support the objection as the Left group, and we urge you all to listen to science and protect people and not profit. Thank you.

01:26:41 - 01:26:54

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now I leave the floor to the Commission. We have Anastasia Alvizou, Deputy Head of Unit E1. Please, you have the floor. You have the floor for five minutes.

01:26:54 - 01:31:56

Anastasia Alvizou

Thank you, Chair, honorable members. Again, I would like to explain briefly why the Commission considers this draft regulation justified, fully justified, and why the proposed objection should not be supported. First, this draft, first on the substance of the measure. This draft measure concludes a process that has been in motion since 2018 under the Article 8 procedure of Regulation 1925/2006 on the addition of vitamins, minerals, and other substances to food.

EFSA has consistently identified serious safety concerns in relation to monacolins from red yeast rice. Already in its 2018 scientific opinion, EFSA found that exposure at intake levels as low as 3 milligrams per day could lead to severe adverse effects, notably on the musculoskeletal system and the liver. Following the Union scrutiny period, where food business operators had ample time to provide all the necessary to demonstrate the safety of those substances, and the evidence that was submitted was scrutinized by EFSA, EFSA confirmed again in January 2025 that the data submitted did not make it possible to establish the safety of monacolins at levels below 3 milligrams a day. Nor did the data allow EFSA to identify any daily intake that would not raise safety concerns, either for the general population or for vulnerable groups. Based on that scientific basis, the draft regulation proposes to prohibit the use of monacolins from red yeast rice in food.

Second, on the legal basis. The Commission is acting under a clear legal obligation.

The scrutiny period of Article 8 has now ended and the Commission must therefore act. Delaying action would not be consistent with the legal framework established by the co-legislators. Third, on the suggestion that the Commission should wait for the Court of Justice rulings in the appeals concerning hydroxyanthracene derivatives. Well, those court cases concern HADs, hydroxyanthracene derivatives, but not monacolins from red yeast rice, which is the case at issue. There is no connection between the two cases.

In any event, the Commission has appealed those General Court judgments. In fact, on the 10th of September 2026, the Advocate General considered that the Commission's main legal arguments are well-founded. She proposed that the judgments be set aside and the cases referred back to the General Court for further assessment. So pending the Court's final rulings, HADs prohibition established by the Regulation 2021/468 remains in force. So the Commission has neither a reason nor a legal basis to suspend the application of the Article 8 in the monacolins case.

Fourth, on the proportionality. In the Commission's view, the draft measure is proportionate to the risk identified. EFSA did not identify any intake level at which Monacolins from red yeast rice could be considered safe, nor did it indicate that warnings or other conditions of use would adequately address the risk. Where the safety of a substance used in food cannot be established, prohibition is the appropriate and proportionate measure in order to ensure a high level of protection of public health. Finally, on public health impacts.

Food supplements should not be relied upon to prevent or treat a disease. Unsafe foods should not remain on the market. Allow me to underline that should the draft regulation be adopted, consumers will not be left without alternatives. It has already been mentioned, other safe options do exist, including substances such as phytosterols for which EFSA has issued favorable scientific opinions on cholesterol-lowering health impacts. The draft measure is therefore fully consistent with a science-based approach to cardiovascular risk management as reflected in the Commission's broader public health approach.

In conclusion, this draft regulation is scientifically justified, legally required, and fully aligned with the objective of high level of protection of public health. For this reason, the Commission considers that the proposed objection should not be supported. Thank you.

01:31:56 - 01:38:44

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now it's time for our voting session. The substitutes: Falcă substitute for Kopacz, Olbrycht substitute for Liese, Beghin for Salini, Verheyen for Staněk, Legutko for Ferenc, Gieseke for Eickhout, Rouchy for Knotek, Pîslaru for Fritzon, Didier for Bușoi, de Veyrac for Alba. Please, colleagues, I kindly ask you some attention. We made a test to see if everything's working.

The vote is open. It's a check vote.

The vote is closed. Okay, so we start with the item number eight, the file from Völken, Bloss and Günther. It's an objection by electronic vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed and the objection is rejected, 40 against, 38 in favor.

Item number nine, the objection by Pietro Fiocchi, electronic vote.

The vote is open. The vote is closed. And the objection is rejected. 49 against, 25 in favor. Objection item number 10, objection by Pascal Canfin.

The vote is open. Electronic vote. The vote is closed. And the objection is adopted. 39 in favor, 38 against, one abstention.

Now we move to... it's still an objection, the 11? No. Monacolli. So, the objection item 11, Garcia and Fiocchi, electronic vote. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. And it's rejected. 39 against, 36 in favor, three abstentions. We have the report by Terheş. So, amendment number 17.

Yes, exactly. So, the objection amendment number 17 by roll call vote. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. Rejected. Now by roll-call vote the compromise number 1. The vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted.

Always by roll-call vote the compromise number 2. The vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted. By roll-call vote compromise number 3, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted.

Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's adopted, 74 in favor, 4 abstentions, congratulations to the rapporteur. Now we have the item number 13, rapporteur Mathilde Androuët, she has... No, what?

13, pardon, always Terheş. So, amendment 14 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's rejected. By roll call vote, the compromise number 1, I open the vote.

I close the vote. And it's adopted. Compromise number 2 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's adopted.

Compromise number 3 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open.

The vote is closed. 72 in favor, five abstentions, adopted, congratulations again to the rapporteur. Now the item 14, the report by Mrs. Androuët, she asked for the floor, you have the floor for two minutes.

01:38:44 - 01:40:53

Mathilde Androuët

Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Ici, j'ai toujours voulu défendre nos industries, nos emplois et notre souveraineté, tout en défendant une certaine vision de l'écologie. Premier objectif, un Made in Europe vraiment européen. Si on donne les mêmes avantages aux pays tiers qui concurrencent nos industries, cette préférence européenne sera creuse, vide, un écran de fumée. J'ai aussi voulu faire une vraie place à la filière du recyclage qui sera stratégique dans nos économies à l'avenir.

Mais je veux aussi revenir sur la stupidité politique de ce qui s'est passé autour de ce dossier. Les rapporteurs fictifs français socialistes et de Renew n'ont pas voulu travailler avec moi. J'avais pourtant proposé des compromis reprenant 80 % de vos suggestions pour l'intérêt commun de nos industries, écartant uniquement les amendements socialistes antinucléaires totalement déconnectés des urgences énergétiques de notre continent.

Malgré cela, vous avez refusé ces compromis. Ce texte est un exemple de la raison pour laquelle la France n'a pas la place politique qu'elle devrait occuper au sein de l'Union européenne. Les élus français sont incapables de passer au-dessus de leurs divergences politiques afin de défendre l'intérêt supérieur de notre pays et ici de notre continent. Vous pensiez gagner quelques points pour la prochaine élection présidentielle française, mais les millions de Français concernés par ce texte sauront que vous avez préféré les sacrifier plutôt que de travailler avec le premier parti de France. Quant aux Européens, eux sauront que les Français ont fait passer leur élection présidentielle avant leurs emplois.

Ridicule du début à la fin. Je voterai certains de vos compromis alternatifs, même s'ils se privent volontairement des presque 300 amendements que j'ai déposés, la plupart restent meilleurs que le texte de la Commission. Cependant, je me permets de vous préciser qu'en ne votant pas nos compromis 2 et 5, vous excluez la possibilité d'intégrer la Nouvelle-Calédonie et le Groenland dans le Made in Europe, des territoires que vous abandonnez simplement parce que cet amendement est proposé par le groupe des Patriotes pour l'Europe. Nous, nous dormirons l'âme tranquille ce soir, heureux mais désabusés. Heureux d'avoir fait tout notre possible pour l'intérêt des travailleurs français et européens, mais amers de constater que la démocratie se heurte à la persistance d'un cordon sanitaire d'un autre âge.

Souhaitons juste que les urnes rattrapent vite votre médiocrité.

01:40:53 - 01:58:39

Pierfrancesco Maran

Thank you. Now we proceed with the vote. We start with the compromise number three by raising our hands. Who is in favor?

Who is against? Who abstains? Check. I close the vote and it's rejected. So we have the alternative compromise number three by raising hands.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number four.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number four.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number five.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number five.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number six.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number six.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number seven.

Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number seven.

Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 461, who is in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 465, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?

Rejected. 466, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.

Compromise number nine, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 467, who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 468, who is in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 90, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?

Rejected. 473, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.

469, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. I open the vote.

I close the vote. And it's adopted, sorry. 474. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 475. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 476. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise number 10. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 93. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 10. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 11. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 11. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 12. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 12. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 111. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise 15. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 15. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Amendment 613. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Pardon. 613. 613. Page 24.

Page 24, page 24. Around page 24. Clairgeau. Okay, who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstain? Adopted. Check, check. I open the vote. I close the vote.

Adopted. Amendment 615 and 611. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 16. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise 16 by roll-call vote. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. And it's rejected. So, amendment 618. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 619 and 621. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 620. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 622. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstains? Check. I open the vote.

I close the vote. Rejected. 623, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?

Rejected. 121, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected.

122, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. 624, who is in favor?

Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. 123, who is in favor? Who is against?

Who abstains? Rejected. Check. I open the vote. I close the vote.

Rejected. 625, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected.

626, 627, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. Check.

I open the vote. I close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 124, who is in favor? So amendment 124, who is in favor?

Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. 125, who is in favor? Who is against?

Who abstains? Rejected. 126, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?

Rejected. 628, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected.

629, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected.

630, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 631, who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 632, who is in favor? Who's against?

Who abstained? Rejected. 633, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?

Rejected. 127, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.

634, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 638, who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 635, 636, 637, who is in favor? Who's against?

Who abstained? Rejected. Check. I open the vote. I close the vote.

Adopted. 639, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.

128, 641, who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. 642. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstain, rejected. 643. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected.

644. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. Compromise number 17.

Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise 17 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed.

And it's adopted. Compromise number 18. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected.

Amendment 662. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. Amendment 663.

Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. 664. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain, rejected. 142. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 666. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise number 19. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 19. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 20. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 680. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 679. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 145. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 146. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 21. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain? Adopted. Compromise 22. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 22. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain? Adopted. Compromise 23. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain? Rejected. Amendment 100... Okay.

Pardon. I don't know how long we will take still. So, 168. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. 169. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. Compromise 24. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. Compromise 25. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. Compromise 26. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. Compromise 27. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain? Rejected. Amendment 183. Who's in favor?

Amendment 183, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. 184, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. 186, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Compromise 28, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Amendment 189, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected.

Compromise 29, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Amendment 740, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Amendment 190, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Amendment 741, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Amendment 742, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected.

Compromise 30, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected. Alternative compromise number 30, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, adopted. Compromise 31, who's in favor, who's against, who abstained, rejected.

Alternative compromise number 31, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstain, adopted. Compromise 32, who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise 32, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstain, adopted. Compromise 33, who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain, rejected. Amendment 103, who's in favor? Who's against? Who's against?

203. Yeah. 203. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain, rejected. Compromise 34, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise 34, who's in favor?

Who's against? Abstain, adopted. Compromise 35, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstain, rejected.

Alternative compromise 35, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstain, adopted. Compromise 36, who's in favor? Who's against?

Abstain, rejected. Amendment 209, who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 852. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 853. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Amendment 210. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 854. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. 855. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. 211. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise 39. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 212. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 213. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 856. Who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise, amendment 857, who is in favor? Who's against?

Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise 14, who is in favor?

01:58:39 - 01:58:41

Speaker 39

41.

01:58:41 - 02:02:44

Pierfrancesco Maran

41. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected.

Alternative compromise 41, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise 43, who is in favor?

Are you okay now? Me too, thank you. Compromise 43, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?

Rejected. Alternative compromise 43, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.

Compromise 44, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 44 by roll call vote, the vote is open.

The vote is closed. Adopted. Compromise 45, who is in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 45 by roll-call vote. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. And it's adopted. Compromise 46. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 46. Who's in favor? Who's against?

Who abstain? Adopted. Sorry, I don't have the list, so it's easier for me. Compromise number one. Who's in favor?

Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment number two. Who's in favor?

Who's against? No, it's the amendment number two. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?

Rejected. Amendment number three. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?

Rejected. Amendment number four. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?

Rejected.

Amendment number five. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.

Compromise number two. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.

Alternative compromise number two. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted.

Final vote by roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted, 54 in favor, 9 against, 12 abstentions. Now, the next item. Please, colleagues, we have the item number 15.

It's the genetically modified soybean.

It's a roll call vote and the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted. 59 in favor, 15 against, two abstentions. I thank you. We don't have any other issues.

I close the committee.

02:24:00 - 02:24:02

Good morning, everyone.

02:26:36 - 02:26:56

Good morning, everyone. I'm very happy to welcome you to this extraordinary meeting of the ENVI Committee. We have a very important guest today, the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, Leena Ylä-Mononen. Welcome, Leena, to the ENVI Committee. It's a pleasure to have you here.

02:26:56 - 02:27:06

We are here to discuss the first-ever European Climate Risk Assessment, which was published by the EEA on the 11th of March. This report is a milestone in our understanding of the climate risks that Europe is facing and will face in the future.

02:28:30 - 02:28:49

Allez, on y va. C'est parti. On va attendre que les gens se posent un petit peu. On va attendre que tout le monde s'installe. On va attendre que tout le monde s'installe.

02:28:49 - 02:28:51

Pierfrancesco Maran

On va attendre que tout le monde s'installe. On va attendre que tout le monde s'installe.

Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.

European Parliament

Follow upcoming sessions live, transcribed word for word, with AI chat

One free trial opens the AI chat on every session, the biographies of your parliament's members, alerts, and your questions to Claude or ChatGPT.

  • Live transcript, every speaker identified
  • The biography of every member of your parliament, with its assistant
  • Alerts on your keywords, and your questions to Claude or ChatGPT

Every video is free to watch, live and on replay, no account needed.

14-day free trial · cancel anytime

Free trial Learn more

Already have an account? Log in

Keyboard shortcuts

Playback

Play / pause
Space
Back / forward 15 s
←→
Back / forward 10 s
JL
Full screen
F

Chapters and transcript

Previous / next chapter
PN
Search the transcript
/
Turn follow on / off
S
Copy the current sentence as a quote
C
Show this help
?

Inactive while a text field, a button or the chat has focus.