Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety – Extraordinary Meeting
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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSander Smit
We should keep these rules workable for 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Last speaker, Luce Brasier-Clain, for one minute, please.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
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, 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 ?
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.
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.
So the delegated act strikes a balance. It's a robust and science-based framework that provides strong safeguards without creating disproportionate administrative burden. So let me briefly address the main 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. 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 arrangements 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. Lastly, 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.
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.
Pietro Fiocchi
Carissimo presidente, carissimi colleghi, e 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 pagate per fare il lavoro che oggi fanno i cacciatori nel controllo degli invasivi, degli 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 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 animale, se questa cosa sia accettabile. Per non parlare che poi le munizioni tendono a rimbalzare, le 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 e 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 pressione 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 venti per cento 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 a tiro. Vi è una deroga, ma accompagnata da misure sulla gestione ambientale dei campi da 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, 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, 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Mr. Fiocchi. Now the floor to the shadow, we start with the EPP, Manuela Ripa, two minutes.
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 proportional.
First, it is not a general ban on lead ammunition. Bullets, slugs and airgun pellets are excluded. Military, defense and security uses 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 favour of a finally phasing lead out of gunshots where safe and practical alternatives exist. Thank you very much.
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 Ripa 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 Ripa, 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 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, l'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.
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, 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.
PME en France, la chasse reste une activité populaire forte de 5 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.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for already mapping out a lot of the things that are on my list. 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're 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'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. 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.
Anja Arndt
Danke, Herr Vorsitzender. Es gibt in Deutschland Schützenvereine, die älter sind als der 30-jährige...
Anja Hazekamp
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.
En 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 de 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.
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 ID, 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 ID 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For the catch-the-eye, we have remotely connected with us Peter Liese.
Peter Liese
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, denn 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, unfortunately no translation, so we will ask some German speaker if you were in favor or against, Mr. Fiocchi. So, Sergio Berlato for ECR for one minute.
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.
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 aprobó 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 restrictiva una nueva propuesta, mucho más dura, e 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 ateniéndonos a nuestros electores y atendiendo a los ciudadanos europeos. Gracias.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the Commission. We have Mrs. Andreea Pantazi, DG GROW, Head of Unit F1.
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 even they 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 be continue to be able to host Olympic Games, 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.
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.
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 Prozent in allen möglichen Formen sicher sind, und wir stellen auch die Arbeit der EFSA nicht in Frage.
Das ist ganz wesentlich hierbei dieser Objection. Aber wir sagen, für ein vollständiges Verbot braucht es eine klare und ausreichende Begründung. Die EFSA hat festgestellt, dass sich aufgrund 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 müssten. 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.
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 too few about all the cumulative 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.
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, oh, 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 Krebs erzeugen. Und dann gibt es kein, kein 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 viel, sehr viele sichere Alternativen gibt, finde ich, dürfen wir unsere Bür- 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 zurecht von den hunderttausend 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.
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.
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 food. 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 the 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, they 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 food, 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 produce 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 diseases, 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Clear at the end. So, last objection, it's the item number seven regarding monacolins from red yeast rice. The objection is presented by Esther Herranz García, you have four minutes.
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 treinta años, tanto en complementos alimenticios 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.
Las 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 y dar 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.
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 Star report here, you had the presentation in ENVI committee one year after the Star 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 three 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, support the proposed prohibition and will vote against the objection.
Thank you.
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 del 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 altri procedimenti da seguire. Io vorrei evitare che, sapete benissimo, tanta gente in Europa che si rifiuta di prendere medicine sul colesterolo e preferisce prendere dei derivati considerati naturali che si rivolgano a dei prodotti meno controllati o non controllati dai 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.
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.
Anja Hazekamp
Yes, thank you, Chair. I have to admit, I am confused. When we as Left members...
Pierfrancesco Maran
Please, colleague, enter in the room, respect for the speaker.
Anja Hazekamp
Thank you. 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.
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.
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's 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now it's time for our voting session. The substitutes: Falcă substitute for Kopacz, Olbrycht substitute for Liese, Beike for Salini, Warborn for Staněk, Leggeri for Ference, Griset for Eider, Roche-Nuelle for Knotek, Pimpi for Frigou, Didier for Buxadé Villalba. Please, colleagues, I kindly ask you some attention. We made a test to see if everything's worked.
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 Wölken, right? No?
From what? Yes, what eight? File from Wölken, 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 Arimont, 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?
So, the objection, item 11, García and Fiocchi, electronic vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's rejected, 39 against, 36 in favor, three abstentions. Now 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 one. The vote is open.
The vote is closed and it's adopted. Always by roll call vote the compromise number two. The vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted. By roll call vote compromise number three, 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, four abstentions, congratulations to the rapporteur. Now we have the item number 14, rapporteur Mathilde Androuët, she asked... no. 13, pardon.
Pardon, always 13, 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 one, I open the vote. I close the vote and it's adopted.
Compromise number two by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted. Compromise number three 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.
Mathilde Androuët
Monsieur le Président, chers collègue. 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 anti-nucléaires 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 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.
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 abstain? Check. I close the vote and it's rejected. So we have the alternative compromise number three by hands. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number four. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number four. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number five. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number five. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number six. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number six. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number seven. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number seven. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number eight. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number eight. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Amendment 461. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 465. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 466. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise number nine. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 467. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 468. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 90. Who is in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Amendment 90, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected.
473, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. 469, who's in favor? Who's against?
Qu'abstain rejected. Check. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted, sorry.
474, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. 475, who's in favor? Who's against?
Qu'abstain rejected. 476, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Compromise number 10, who's in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Amendment 93, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected.
Alternative compromise number 10, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain adopted. Compromise number 11, who's in favor? Who's against?
Qu'abstain rejected. Alternative compromise number 11, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain adopted. Compromise number 12, who's in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Alternative compromise number 12, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain adopted.
Amendment 111, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Amendment 112, who's in favor? Who's against?
Qu'abstain rejected. Amendment 113, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Compromise number 15, who's in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Alternative compromise number 15, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain adopted.
Amendment 613, who's in favor? Who's against? Pardon. 613. 613.
Page 24. Page 24. Around page 24. It's Claire Jo. Claire Jo.
Okay, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain adopted. No. Check.
Check. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 615 and 611, who's in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. Compromise 16, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain 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?
Qu'abstain rejected. 619 and 621, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. 620, who's in favor?
Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. 622, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain check.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Rejected. 623, who's in favor? Who's against?
Qu'abstain rejected. 121, who's in favor? Who's against? Qu'abstain rejected. 122, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 122, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. 624, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 123, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
Check. I open the vote. I close the vote. Rejected. 625, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 626, 627, who is in favor? Who's 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's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 125, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
126, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 628, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 629, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. 630, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 631, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
632, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 633, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 127, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. 634, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 638, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
635, 636, 637, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Check.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. 639, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. 128, 641, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 640, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
642, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 643, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 644, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise number 17, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. Alternative compromise 17 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's adopted. Compromise number 18, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 662, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 663, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 664, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
142, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 662. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 663. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 664. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 142. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 665. 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?
Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise 21. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 22. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Alternative compromise 22. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 23. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. I don't know how long we will take still. So 168. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 169. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 24. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 25. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 26. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 27. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 183. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 184. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 186. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 28. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 189. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise 29. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 740. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 190. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 741. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise number 30, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise 31, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. Alternative compromise number 31, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise 32, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 32, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise 33, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 203, who is in favor? Who's against? Who's against?
203. 203. 203. Who is, sorry, we start again, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise 34, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. Alternative compromise 34, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise 35, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Alternative compromise 35, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise 36, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 209, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. Compromise 37, who is 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 number 40, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 214, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 857, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise 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 and it's adopted. Compromise 45, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise 45 by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted.
Compromise 46, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise 46, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, adopted. Sorry, I don't have the list, so it's easier for me. Compromise number one, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Amendment number two, who is in favor, who's against...
No, it's the amendment number two. Who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Amendment number three, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Amendment number four, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Amendment number five, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected.
Compromise number two, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, rejected. Alternative compromise number two, who is in favor, who's against, abstain, 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 still 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.
Bonjour. Bonjour à tous. Bienvenue. On va commencer dans quelques instants. On attend encore quelques personnes.
On va commencer à 15h35. Merci.
Speaker 35
First, I would like to welcome our guest, Commissioner Sinkevičius, who is here to discuss the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. Thank you for being with us today, Commissioner. Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping announcements. Interpretation is available in all official languages. Please ensure that your microphones are switched off when you are not speaking.
We will start with a presentation from the Commissioner, followed by a round of questions from the political groups. Commissioner, the floor is yours.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the members of the ENVI Committee for this opportunity to discuss our progress on the Circular Economy Action Plan. As you know, the transition to a circular economy is a key pillar of the European Green Deal. It is essential for achieving our climate neutrality goals and for reducing our dependence on raw materials. Since the adoption of the plan in 2020, we have made significant progress. We have proposed new rules on batteries, packaging, and eco-design for sustainable products.
These measures will help to ensure that products are designed to be durable, repairable, and recyclable. However, we still have a long way to go. We need to accelerate the transition in key sectors such as textiles, electronics, and construction. We also need to improve our waste management systems and promote the use of recycled materials. I look forward to hearing your views and discussing how we can work together to achieve our common goals.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner, for that comprehensive overview. We will now open the floor for questions. I will start with the coordinators of the political groups. First, on behalf of the EPP group, Mr. Liese.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. The EPP group fully supports the transition to a circular economy. We believe that it is not only good for the environment but also for our economy and our competitiveness. However, we are concerned about the impact of some of the proposed measures on our industries, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. How will the Commission ensure that the new rules are proportionate and do not create unnecessary administrative burdens?
We also need to ensure that there is a level playing field for our companies, particularly in relation to imports from third countries. What steps is the Commission taking to address this issue? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Liese. Next, on behalf of the S&D group, Ms. Guteland.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, thank you for being here. The S&D group welcomes the progress that has been made on the Circular Economy Action Plan. We believe that it is essential to move away from our current 'take-make-dispose' model. We are particularly pleased to see the focus on sustainable products and the 'right to repair'.
However, we believe that we need to be more ambitious in some areas. For example, we need to set binding targets for resource use and waste reduction. We also need to ensure that the transition is socially just and that workers are supported in the transition to a circular economy. What is the Commission's view on setting binding targets for resource efficiency? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Guteland. Next, on behalf of the Renew Europe group, Mr. Torvalds.
Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. Renew Europe is a strong supporter of the circular economy. We believe that innovation is key to achieving our goals. We need to create the right incentives for companies to invest in circular business models.
Allez, on y va. C'est parti. On va attendre que tout le monde s'installe. On va commencer dans deux minutes. On va peut-être fermer les portes.
On va peut-être fermer les portes. On va peut-être fermer les portes. On va peut-être fermer les portes.