This week, the time is finally set. The Commission wants to present a proposal for the coordinated EU and Euratom withdrawal from the Energy Charter. The College of EU Commissioners wants to decide by Friday in the written procedure. Rarely does so little information get through to us journalists. Even the deputies of the member states are surprisingly clueless.
And that while the major controversy surrounding the Energy Charter is actually behind us. Back in November, the modernization of the controversial Investment Protection Treaty was supposed to be decided at a meeting of the ECT states. It failed because of Brussels. The EU states could not agree on a position. Since then, the EU has been blocking the modernization process.
The blockade came about after one EU state after another announced its withdrawal from the Charter. Last November, the European Parliament also came out in favor of withdrawal. And in December, the German cabinet formally decided on Germany’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty.
For the past year, Brussels has been struggling to decide how the collective withdrawal from the Charter could be best implemented. Most recently, the Swedish presidency tried to resolve the stalemate. It proposed that the EU should indeed leave as a bloc. But since it is a mixed treaty, the EU 26 (Italy is already out) should vote individually on modernization at the next Energy Charter conference. The scenario accommodates those members that want to remain in the Charter. Legally, however, the solution is not entirely clean, as experts confirmed to us.
Whether the Commission decides in favor of this variant will become clear on Friday.
Just under a month ago, this news made headlines: Bayer is no longer allowed to market its glyphosate product Roundup as “safe” and “non-toxic” in the US. For $6.9 million, the company had settled one of many lawsuits Bayer inherited from Monsanto. The decision on whether glyphosate is “safe” is still pending in the EU.
Today, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will communicate its assessment to the Commission, the Member States and the applicants. The latter is the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG), an association of several companies producing glyphosate-containing herbicides, including Bayer, Syngenta and Barclay Chemicals.
The decision is eagerly awaited. In informed circles, it is assumed that EFSA will recommend an extension of the approval.
Actually, the decision for or against an extension of the controversial weedkiller should have been made a year ago. But EFSA needed more time to draft its opinion. The reason was the sheer number of papers the authority had to review: the dossier has more than 180,000 pages and includes over 1,500 studies and 12,000 scientific articles. All the studies on glyphosate produced worldwide were submitted, according to the companies involved.
In addition, an unusually large number of contributions was received by the competent authorities as part of the public consultation, writes EFSA on its website. This is “confirming the high level of interest in this substance. Such a level of public participation underlines the importance of transparency in the evaluation of active substances in the EU.”
The re-approval of glyphosate proceeds in several stages. In addition to EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) also had to review the active ingredient. This is preceded by a review by the Glyphosate Assessment Group (AGG). In this case, the group of four member states includes France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden.
The group already submitted its report in June 2021. The report is rather positive. For example, the reviewers write that a classification of the active ingredient as carcinogenic, genotoxic and toxic to reproduction is not permissible. Also, the assessment group for glyphosate sees that “no chronic or acute consumer risk is expected from treatments of crops with glyphosate.” The assessment group reaffirmed its approval decision last September.
The chemicals agency ECHA has also already completed its assessment of the active ingredient. It maintains its previous classification that glyphosate can cause severe eye damage and is toxic to aquatic organisms. On the other hand, a classification as “carcinogenic” is not appropriate.
In 2015, however, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” A year later, however, researchers from the WHO and FAO concluded that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic in humans. In the US, Bayer inherited several lawsuits linking the crop protection product Roundup to cancer when it acquired Monsanto and has spent billions on settlements.
Ultimately, however, the decision on the re-authorization of glyphosate will be taken at the political level in the Council of Member States. Based on the assessments by the EU agencies and the glyphosate evaluation group, the EU Commission will submit a recommendation in the form of a delegated act. Then the 27 governments will decide by a qualified majority. In a final step, the national regulatory authorities will decide on the use of glyphosate in their country.
Green agricultural politician and member of the Bundestag Karl Bär insists that Germany keeps its word and bans glyphosate nationally and pushes ahead with a European ban. The deadline is January 1, 2024, when the glyphosate ban already regulated by the previous government under the Plant Protection Application Ordinance and agreed to by the “traffic light” government in the coalition agreement must come into force.
“The main use of glyphosate is in agriculture. But it can manage without herbicides, through mechanical tillage of the soil and crop rotation, as organic farming shows,” says Bär. These methods of weed control are also part of the good professional practice of conventional farmers. Bär points out that glyphosate is already banned in Germany on stone surfaces such as garage driveways. Without an absorbent soil layer, he says, contamination of groundwater cannot be ruled out.
The SPD is more reserved. The reduction of pesticide use is essential, but must be done with a sense of proportion and on a scientific basis, said the responsible Member of Parliament Franziska Kersten to Table.Media. “We will therefore look closely at the EFSA report on glyphosate.” Proper solutions would still be sought, especially for “climate-friendly, plow-less soil cultivation.” In fact, glyphosate often replaces weed removal with plow and hoe.
A year ago, a qualified majority for the extension of the glyphosate authorization could not be reached in the Council, which is also why the Commission decided to wait for the EFSA assessment and to extend authorization by only one year. This will now expire on December 15. It is difficult to say at this point what the majority situation in the Council will be.
It is clear that countries such as Austria and Luxembourg will speak out against approval. Luxembourg had already banned the use of products containing glyphosate in January 2021. In May, however, the administrative court lifted the ban.
What is striking is the effort put in by the applicants to improve the reputation of glyphosate. This is not surprising since the Monsanto Papers. In 2017, journalists from the newspaper “Le Monde” proved that the company paid renowned scientists to validate studies prepared by Monsanto.
According to the EU Transparency Register, Monsanto buyer Bayer has a lobbying budget of around six million (2022) and employs 79 lobbyists. As recently as March, the group met with the cabinet of Commission Vice President Frans Timmermanns to discuss the sustainable use of pesticides. The Glyphosate Renewal Group had a lobbying budget of €300,000 to €400,000 in 2022. The money went mainly to the consulting firm Penta (formerly Hume Brophy), with which Bayer also works.
The European Parliament is already preparing for a possible approval recommendation: “If EFSA comes out in favor of an extension, it is putting its credibility on the line,” says Green MEP Tilly Metz. Several studies have shown the impact of glyphosate on soil, water, biodiversity and the entire ecosystem. If the Commission puts forward a proposal along the lines of an authorization, the Parliament will reject the delegated act, Metz said. She is confident that there will be the necessary simple majority for this, even without the EPP.
Susanne Kühl, a biologist at the University of Ulm, is also extremely critical of further approval. She is the author of one of the most recent glyphosate studies. The researcher tested the effect of pure glyphosate on amphibians and concluded: Even at a concentration of 0.1 milligrams per liter, there are negative effects on tadpoles, for example, in the form of malformed cranial nerves and reduced heart size. By comparison, concentrations of 2.45 milligrams have already been detected in waters in Portugal. “Our study is in line with quite a few other studies and proves the harmful properties of glyphosate.”
Meanwhile, two Stockholm University scientists recently criticized EFSA’s approach. Axel Mie and Christina Rudén compared which toxicity studies applicants submitted to the US EPA and the European EFSA, respectively. Of 35 studies, nine were not submitted to EFSA, seven of which are of “regulatory importance,” according to the researchers.
Among corporations that have knowingly or unknowingly withheld studies are members of the GRG group, including Bayer and Syngenta. The scientists recommend, for example, that regulatory authorities cooperate more and reconcile studies. When asked, EFSA confirms that the studies relevant to glyphosate were subsequently included in the approval dossier. With Annette Bruhns
Yesterday, Wednesday, the European Commission presented its proposal for the deregulation of genetic engineering law, which had already been made public in advance. Although this proposal is in the interest of the Christian Democrats (EPP), there are no signs that the EPP will be changed by it before the decisive vote in the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law or on the pesticide regulation. There had been speculation about possible horse-trading in the run-up to the vote.
The plenary will vote next Wednesday in Strasbourg on a draft regulation to restore nature. “Let’s wait and see,” Commission Vice President Frans Timmermanns replied yesterday when asked if the GM proposals would change the EPP’s stance. “We will keep trying to convince them of the content,” the Green Deal Chief said. He also pointed to the position of the Environment Council, which could convince “a large majority” of European parliamentarians.
Pascal Canfin, Chairman of the Environment Committee, argued last week that the GMO regulation could cause movement among Christian Democrats about the Nature Restoration Law. The EPP demands technical solutions to problems in agriculture, and the proposal presented yesterday meets this demand, the French MEP said.
However, there is little to suggest that the EPP is now prepared to compromise on the Nature Restoration Law and the pesticide regulation. In the EPP, the proposals on soil health (see also the News section) and new breeding techniques are interpreted as a major defeat for Timmermanns. The package presented on Wednesday is politically more in line with the demands of the Christian Democrats and less in line with the demands of the Social Democrats, Renew and the Greens.
Peter Liese, the EPP Group’s environment and climate policy spokesman, expressly thanked Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides for “putting forward this important proposal.” Von der Leyen had reportedly held several talks recently with leading Christian Democrats to lower the temperature.
The signs still point to confrontation for the vote on Wednesday’s Nature Restoration Law. The EPP is trying to close ranks internally to gather a majority in the plenum for the rejection of the Commission’s proposal. A close outcome is expected.
If there is no majority in favor of rejection, several amendments are likely to be voted on. These motions are currently in preparation. It is questionable whether there will ultimately be a majority in Parliament for the Nature Restoration Law. Only then could the trilogue start. Otherwise, the Commission proposal would go back to the committees.
With its proposal for the future regulation of genetically modified plants, the Commission has largely followed the recommendations from the scientific community. Numerous researchers and leading scientific organizations are pushing for deregulation and see no increased risk for humans or the environment. In Germany, for example, the Leopoldina, the Union of German Academies and the German Research Foundation already spoke out in favor of differentiated regulation in a statement in 2019 and reiterated their position at the beginning of this year.
Politicians from the Greens and SPD are critical of the relaxations, while representatives of the FDP tend to emphasize the expected benefits. Meanwhile, the Food without Genetic Engineering Association is worried about its business model: “This is an attack on the ‘without genetic engineering’ and organic industries, which account for more than €30 billion in sales in Germany alone,” said Bernhard Stoll, a member of the association’s board.
Critics also fear that large corporations could gain even more influence over food, for example, through patents. Matin Qaim from the University of Bonn counters this: “The dominance of a few large corporations in the field of genetic engineering is mainly due to the fact that the approval procedures are so extremely lengthy and expensive.” With deregulation, small companies and public institutions could also get back in the game, says the Professor of Agricultural Economics. With Anne Brüning
Udo Bullmann does not think much of political role models. “I’m a Lutheran Christian and don’t need any more gods,” says the SPD politician. Rather, the MEP is impressed by people who sometimes swim against the tide, who stand up and speak their minds, even if it does not necessarily bring them advantages. During his time with the Young Socialists in the 1980s, he was thus always on the side of the undogmatic. “Always anti-authoritarian,” Bullmann says, “giving strength to those who need it.”
Some time has passed since his Young Socialist days. Still, nothing has changed in his understanding of politics. “Bottom-up and close to the people,” is how he describes his style. The 66-year-old has now been sitting in the European Parliament for almost 25 years and acts according to this principle.
When Bullmann speaks of the EU, he affectionately calls it a “project.” A project that has fascinated him today, as it has throughout his life. Born in Giessen, Germany, Bullmann studied political science, sociology, public law and economics at the University of Giessen after leaving school. After graduating in 1982, Bullmann earned his doctorate and became Professor of European studies. In 1999, he decided to become an active politician. “It was clear to me, it’s going to Europe,” Bullmann says, “that’s where the tasks of the future are waiting, and the creative freedom as a politician is the greatest.”
In his now 24 years in Brussels, Bullmann has taken on various roles in Parliament, sat on various committees and was Chairman of the S&D Group in Parliament from 2018 to 2019. At the core, then as now, he was concerned with enabling social justice and fighting inequalities, the politician says. For a better future. True to his favorite quote by French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “One should not want to foresee the future, but make it possible.”
Bullmann has been Chairman of the Human Rights Committee since the beginning of the year. His predecessor, Maria Arena of Belgium, stepped down from the position in January. Her name kept coming up in connection with the recent corruption scandal in the European Parliament. Bullmann’s conditions for succeeding her: “Everything must be cleared up. The Committee must be there for those whose human rights are at risk.”
In his Committee work, he is intensively involved in exchanges with opposition politicians and NGO representatives from third countries. It is important, he says, that the EU tries to improve human rights without using imperialistic methods. Without the global South feeling patronized. “By also looking at ourselves, for example,” Bullmann says, “checking our trade agreements to see if we are doing enough to improve human rights in the respective country.”
The SPD politician also criticizes the human rights situation in Europe. Udo Bullmann points to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Poland and Hungary. “In both cases, we must not only find words but also show reactions,” Bullmann says. If the two states were not EU members today, Bullmann would doubt they could join the Union at present.
The experienced politician is enthusiastic about many countries and cultures. That is why he likes living and working in the Belgian capital. “Brussels is an open, European city. A place for many different cultures, even if Strasbourg is more picturesque from the cityscape.” When he is not working, he spends a lot of time with his wife and three children. And then, of course, there is SV Werder Bremen in the SPD politician’s life. Dayan Djajadisastra
Have you listened to them yet? There are a total of 27 tracks on the Spanish Presidency Spotify list. In the past five years, Spanish music has turned up the heat and celebrated international success. But the Spaniards’ varied playlist spans further, both in time and style. Nevertheless, there is of course a lot of guitar plucking and hand clapping to be heard. But also pop and jazz!
Rosalía, known for her blend of flamenco and pop, leads the playlist. “Malamente” made the singer an international megastar in 2018 and probably Spain’s most important pop export at the moment. The 30-year-old comes from Barcelona, from good parents, but flirts with the Gitano culture, for which she is also sometimes accused of cultural appropriation. Just like the rapper C. Tangana, who is also represented on the playlist. The staging of his videos is highly professional; check out Tangana’s Tiny Desk concert. Pay attention to the wine bottles, they’re not standing there by accident.
Some may remember “La Flaca” (the skinny one) by the band Jarabe de Palo, a classic from the 90s. The song was standard work in the Spanish class at the high school of one of our colleagues. Those who like to go wild while dancing will surely appreciate “La sirena varada” by the Heroes Del Silencio, heroes of the 90s, who landed a European hit with “Entre dos Tierras” back then – and anything but quietly!
Promising is the title “La Revolucion Sexual.” It’s about a person who has always been pessimistic and had low self-esteem, but now suddenly calls out the sexual revolution. Musically, however, this is neither revolutionary nor particularly fulfilling.
In addition, there are also artists among the performers whom inclined listeners would not actually have expected to find on a Spanish playlist – such as the Colombian world star Shakira. However, she is represented in a duet with the Madrilenian Alejandro Sanz. Electropop at its finest!
But what is Miles Davis doing on the list? A concession: Quite a few people probably think of the well-tempered jazz classic “Sketches of Spain” when they think of Spanish music, which the trumpeter recorded in the late 1950s as a tribute to flamenco and Andalusian passion music.
If you have a taste for European music: Commissioner Thierry Breton’s playlists are also original. Fabian Peltsch and Corinna Visser hope you enjoy listening.
This week, the time is finally set. The Commission wants to present a proposal for the coordinated EU and Euratom withdrawal from the Energy Charter. The College of EU Commissioners wants to decide by Friday in the written procedure. Rarely does so little information get through to us journalists. Even the deputies of the member states are surprisingly clueless.
And that while the major controversy surrounding the Energy Charter is actually behind us. Back in November, the modernization of the controversial Investment Protection Treaty was supposed to be decided at a meeting of the ECT states. It failed because of Brussels. The EU states could not agree on a position. Since then, the EU has been blocking the modernization process.
The blockade came about after one EU state after another announced its withdrawal from the Charter. Last November, the European Parliament also came out in favor of withdrawal. And in December, the German cabinet formally decided on Germany’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty.
For the past year, Brussels has been struggling to decide how the collective withdrawal from the Charter could be best implemented. Most recently, the Swedish presidency tried to resolve the stalemate. It proposed that the EU should indeed leave as a bloc. But since it is a mixed treaty, the EU 26 (Italy is already out) should vote individually on modernization at the next Energy Charter conference. The scenario accommodates those members that want to remain in the Charter. Legally, however, the solution is not entirely clean, as experts confirmed to us.
Whether the Commission decides in favor of this variant will become clear on Friday.
Just under a month ago, this news made headlines: Bayer is no longer allowed to market its glyphosate product Roundup as “safe” and “non-toxic” in the US. For $6.9 million, the company had settled one of many lawsuits Bayer inherited from Monsanto. The decision on whether glyphosate is “safe” is still pending in the EU.
Today, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will communicate its assessment to the Commission, the Member States and the applicants. The latter is the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG), an association of several companies producing glyphosate-containing herbicides, including Bayer, Syngenta and Barclay Chemicals.
The decision is eagerly awaited. In informed circles, it is assumed that EFSA will recommend an extension of the approval.
Actually, the decision for or against an extension of the controversial weedkiller should have been made a year ago. But EFSA needed more time to draft its opinion. The reason was the sheer number of papers the authority had to review: the dossier has more than 180,000 pages and includes over 1,500 studies and 12,000 scientific articles. All the studies on glyphosate produced worldwide were submitted, according to the companies involved.
In addition, an unusually large number of contributions was received by the competent authorities as part of the public consultation, writes EFSA on its website. This is “confirming the high level of interest in this substance. Such a level of public participation underlines the importance of transparency in the evaluation of active substances in the EU.”
The re-approval of glyphosate proceeds in several stages. In addition to EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) also had to review the active ingredient. This is preceded by a review by the Glyphosate Assessment Group (AGG). In this case, the group of four member states includes France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden.
The group already submitted its report in June 2021. The report is rather positive. For example, the reviewers write that a classification of the active ingredient as carcinogenic, genotoxic and toxic to reproduction is not permissible. Also, the assessment group for glyphosate sees that “no chronic or acute consumer risk is expected from treatments of crops with glyphosate.” The assessment group reaffirmed its approval decision last September.
The chemicals agency ECHA has also already completed its assessment of the active ingredient. It maintains its previous classification that glyphosate can cause severe eye damage and is toxic to aquatic organisms. On the other hand, a classification as “carcinogenic” is not appropriate.
In 2015, however, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” A year later, however, researchers from the WHO and FAO concluded that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic in humans. In the US, Bayer inherited several lawsuits linking the crop protection product Roundup to cancer when it acquired Monsanto and has spent billions on settlements.
Ultimately, however, the decision on the re-authorization of glyphosate will be taken at the political level in the Council of Member States. Based on the assessments by the EU agencies and the glyphosate evaluation group, the EU Commission will submit a recommendation in the form of a delegated act. Then the 27 governments will decide by a qualified majority. In a final step, the national regulatory authorities will decide on the use of glyphosate in their country.
Green agricultural politician and member of the Bundestag Karl Bär insists that Germany keeps its word and bans glyphosate nationally and pushes ahead with a European ban. The deadline is January 1, 2024, when the glyphosate ban already regulated by the previous government under the Plant Protection Application Ordinance and agreed to by the “traffic light” government in the coalition agreement must come into force.
“The main use of glyphosate is in agriculture. But it can manage without herbicides, through mechanical tillage of the soil and crop rotation, as organic farming shows,” says Bär. These methods of weed control are also part of the good professional practice of conventional farmers. Bär points out that glyphosate is already banned in Germany on stone surfaces such as garage driveways. Without an absorbent soil layer, he says, contamination of groundwater cannot be ruled out.
The SPD is more reserved. The reduction of pesticide use is essential, but must be done with a sense of proportion and on a scientific basis, said the responsible Member of Parliament Franziska Kersten to Table.Media. “We will therefore look closely at the EFSA report on glyphosate.” Proper solutions would still be sought, especially for “climate-friendly, plow-less soil cultivation.” In fact, glyphosate often replaces weed removal with plow and hoe.
A year ago, a qualified majority for the extension of the glyphosate authorization could not be reached in the Council, which is also why the Commission decided to wait for the EFSA assessment and to extend authorization by only one year. This will now expire on December 15. It is difficult to say at this point what the majority situation in the Council will be.
It is clear that countries such as Austria and Luxembourg will speak out against approval. Luxembourg had already banned the use of products containing glyphosate in January 2021. In May, however, the administrative court lifted the ban.
What is striking is the effort put in by the applicants to improve the reputation of glyphosate. This is not surprising since the Monsanto Papers. In 2017, journalists from the newspaper “Le Monde” proved that the company paid renowned scientists to validate studies prepared by Monsanto.
According to the EU Transparency Register, Monsanto buyer Bayer has a lobbying budget of around six million (2022) and employs 79 lobbyists. As recently as March, the group met with the cabinet of Commission Vice President Frans Timmermanns to discuss the sustainable use of pesticides. The Glyphosate Renewal Group had a lobbying budget of €300,000 to €400,000 in 2022. The money went mainly to the consulting firm Penta (formerly Hume Brophy), with which Bayer also works.
The European Parliament is already preparing for a possible approval recommendation: “If EFSA comes out in favor of an extension, it is putting its credibility on the line,” says Green MEP Tilly Metz. Several studies have shown the impact of glyphosate on soil, water, biodiversity and the entire ecosystem. If the Commission puts forward a proposal along the lines of an authorization, the Parliament will reject the delegated act, Metz said. She is confident that there will be the necessary simple majority for this, even without the EPP.
Susanne Kühl, a biologist at the University of Ulm, is also extremely critical of further approval. She is the author of one of the most recent glyphosate studies. The researcher tested the effect of pure glyphosate on amphibians and concluded: Even at a concentration of 0.1 milligrams per liter, there are negative effects on tadpoles, for example, in the form of malformed cranial nerves and reduced heart size. By comparison, concentrations of 2.45 milligrams have already been detected in waters in Portugal. “Our study is in line with quite a few other studies and proves the harmful properties of glyphosate.”
Meanwhile, two Stockholm University scientists recently criticized EFSA’s approach. Axel Mie and Christina Rudén compared which toxicity studies applicants submitted to the US EPA and the European EFSA, respectively. Of 35 studies, nine were not submitted to EFSA, seven of which are of “regulatory importance,” according to the researchers.
Among corporations that have knowingly or unknowingly withheld studies are members of the GRG group, including Bayer and Syngenta. The scientists recommend, for example, that regulatory authorities cooperate more and reconcile studies. When asked, EFSA confirms that the studies relevant to glyphosate were subsequently included in the approval dossier. With Annette Bruhns
Yesterday, Wednesday, the European Commission presented its proposal for the deregulation of genetic engineering law, which had already been made public in advance. Although this proposal is in the interest of the Christian Democrats (EPP), there are no signs that the EPP will be changed by it before the decisive vote in the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law or on the pesticide regulation. There had been speculation about possible horse-trading in the run-up to the vote.
The plenary will vote next Wednesday in Strasbourg on a draft regulation to restore nature. “Let’s wait and see,” Commission Vice President Frans Timmermanns replied yesterday when asked if the GM proposals would change the EPP’s stance. “We will keep trying to convince them of the content,” the Green Deal Chief said. He also pointed to the position of the Environment Council, which could convince “a large majority” of European parliamentarians.
Pascal Canfin, Chairman of the Environment Committee, argued last week that the GMO regulation could cause movement among Christian Democrats about the Nature Restoration Law. The EPP demands technical solutions to problems in agriculture, and the proposal presented yesterday meets this demand, the French MEP said.
However, there is little to suggest that the EPP is now prepared to compromise on the Nature Restoration Law and the pesticide regulation. In the EPP, the proposals on soil health (see also the News section) and new breeding techniques are interpreted as a major defeat for Timmermanns. The package presented on Wednesday is politically more in line with the demands of the Christian Democrats and less in line with the demands of the Social Democrats, Renew and the Greens.
Peter Liese, the EPP Group’s environment and climate policy spokesman, expressly thanked Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides for “putting forward this important proposal.” Von der Leyen had reportedly held several talks recently with leading Christian Democrats to lower the temperature.
The signs still point to confrontation for the vote on Wednesday’s Nature Restoration Law. The EPP is trying to close ranks internally to gather a majority in the plenum for the rejection of the Commission’s proposal. A close outcome is expected.
If there is no majority in favor of rejection, several amendments are likely to be voted on. These motions are currently in preparation. It is questionable whether there will ultimately be a majority in Parliament for the Nature Restoration Law. Only then could the trilogue start. Otherwise, the Commission proposal would go back to the committees.
With its proposal for the future regulation of genetically modified plants, the Commission has largely followed the recommendations from the scientific community. Numerous researchers and leading scientific organizations are pushing for deregulation and see no increased risk for humans or the environment. In Germany, for example, the Leopoldina, the Union of German Academies and the German Research Foundation already spoke out in favor of differentiated regulation in a statement in 2019 and reiterated their position at the beginning of this year.
Politicians from the Greens and SPD are critical of the relaxations, while representatives of the FDP tend to emphasize the expected benefits. Meanwhile, the Food without Genetic Engineering Association is worried about its business model: “This is an attack on the ‘without genetic engineering’ and organic industries, which account for more than €30 billion in sales in Germany alone,” said Bernhard Stoll, a member of the association’s board.
Critics also fear that large corporations could gain even more influence over food, for example, through patents. Matin Qaim from the University of Bonn counters this: “The dominance of a few large corporations in the field of genetic engineering is mainly due to the fact that the approval procedures are so extremely lengthy and expensive.” With deregulation, small companies and public institutions could also get back in the game, says the Professor of Agricultural Economics. With Anne Brüning
Udo Bullmann does not think much of political role models. “I’m a Lutheran Christian and don’t need any more gods,” says the SPD politician. Rather, the MEP is impressed by people who sometimes swim against the tide, who stand up and speak their minds, even if it does not necessarily bring them advantages. During his time with the Young Socialists in the 1980s, he was thus always on the side of the undogmatic. “Always anti-authoritarian,” Bullmann says, “giving strength to those who need it.”
Some time has passed since his Young Socialist days. Still, nothing has changed in his understanding of politics. “Bottom-up and close to the people,” is how he describes his style. The 66-year-old has now been sitting in the European Parliament for almost 25 years and acts according to this principle.
When Bullmann speaks of the EU, he affectionately calls it a “project.” A project that has fascinated him today, as it has throughout his life. Born in Giessen, Germany, Bullmann studied political science, sociology, public law and economics at the University of Giessen after leaving school. After graduating in 1982, Bullmann earned his doctorate and became Professor of European studies. In 1999, he decided to become an active politician. “It was clear to me, it’s going to Europe,” Bullmann says, “that’s where the tasks of the future are waiting, and the creative freedom as a politician is the greatest.”
In his now 24 years in Brussels, Bullmann has taken on various roles in Parliament, sat on various committees and was Chairman of the S&D Group in Parliament from 2018 to 2019. At the core, then as now, he was concerned with enabling social justice and fighting inequalities, the politician says. For a better future. True to his favorite quote by French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “One should not want to foresee the future, but make it possible.”
Bullmann has been Chairman of the Human Rights Committee since the beginning of the year. His predecessor, Maria Arena of Belgium, stepped down from the position in January. Her name kept coming up in connection with the recent corruption scandal in the European Parliament. Bullmann’s conditions for succeeding her: “Everything must be cleared up. The Committee must be there for those whose human rights are at risk.”
In his Committee work, he is intensively involved in exchanges with opposition politicians and NGO representatives from third countries. It is important, he says, that the EU tries to improve human rights without using imperialistic methods. Without the global South feeling patronized. “By also looking at ourselves, for example,” Bullmann says, “checking our trade agreements to see if we are doing enough to improve human rights in the respective country.”
The SPD politician also criticizes the human rights situation in Europe. Udo Bullmann points to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Poland and Hungary. “In both cases, we must not only find words but also show reactions,” Bullmann says. If the two states were not EU members today, Bullmann would doubt they could join the Union at present.
The experienced politician is enthusiastic about many countries and cultures. That is why he likes living and working in the Belgian capital. “Brussels is an open, European city. A place for many different cultures, even if Strasbourg is more picturesque from the cityscape.” When he is not working, he spends a lot of time with his wife and three children. And then, of course, there is SV Werder Bremen in the SPD politician’s life. Dayan Djajadisastra
Have you listened to them yet? There are a total of 27 tracks on the Spanish Presidency Spotify list. In the past five years, Spanish music has turned up the heat and celebrated international success. But the Spaniards’ varied playlist spans further, both in time and style. Nevertheless, there is of course a lot of guitar plucking and hand clapping to be heard. But also pop and jazz!
Rosalía, known for her blend of flamenco and pop, leads the playlist. “Malamente” made the singer an international megastar in 2018 and probably Spain’s most important pop export at the moment. The 30-year-old comes from Barcelona, from good parents, but flirts with the Gitano culture, for which she is also sometimes accused of cultural appropriation. Just like the rapper C. Tangana, who is also represented on the playlist. The staging of his videos is highly professional; check out Tangana’s Tiny Desk concert. Pay attention to the wine bottles, they’re not standing there by accident.
Some may remember “La Flaca” (the skinny one) by the band Jarabe de Palo, a classic from the 90s. The song was standard work in the Spanish class at the high school of one of our colleagues. Those who like to go wild while dancing will surely appreciate “La sirena varada” by the Heroes Del Silencio, heroes of the 90s, who landed a European hit with “Entre dos Tierras” back then – and anything but quietly!
Promising is the title “La Revolucion Sexual.” It’s about a person who has always been pessimistic and had low self-esteem, but now suddenly calls out the sexual revolution. Musically, however, this is neither revolutionary nor particularly fulfilling.
In addition, there are also artists among the performers whom inclined listeners would not actually have expected to find on a Spanish playlist – such as the Colombian world star Shakira. However, she is represented in a duet with the Madrilenian Alejandro Sanz. Electropop at its finest!
But what is Miles Davis doing on the list? A concession: Quite a few people probably think of the well-tempered jazz classic “Sketches of Spain” when they think of Spanish music, which the trumpeter recorded in the late 1950s as a tribute to flamenco and Andalusian passion music.
If you have a taste for European music: Commissioner Thierry Breton’s playlists are also original. Fabian Peltsch and Corinna Visser hope you enjoy listening.
