Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The year that was. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s last hurrah of 2025 saw everyone’s favorite duo row about the turkey Labour’s record over the last 12 months — and who caused the nightmare before Christmas. Pull the other one: Badenoch wished everyone a festive break in the season of goodwill — but then the gloves came off. She raised the PM’s own frustration at pulling levers but struggling to get change (Labour’s favorite word). “Does he blame himself or the levers?” Cutting. Starmer used the free airtime to rattle through his achievements, stressing “I’ve got a whole list … I could go on for a very long time.” Comparisons to Santa write themselves. Jobbing off:  “The Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that’s grown is his list of broken promises,” Badenoch hit back. This list analogy was really gaining momentum. She lambasted rising unemployment under Labour, yet the PM was able to point to lower inactivity under his watch and, of course, mentioned the boost of falling inflation this morning. Backhanded compliment: Starmer, no doubt desperate for a rest, used the imminent break to “congratulate” Badenoch for breaking a record on the number of Tories defecting to Reform UK. “The question is who’s next,” he mused, enjoying the chance to focus on the Conservatives’ threat to their right, rather than Labour’s troubles to its left. Clucking their tongues: Outraged at her Shadow Cabinet getting called non-entities, Badenoch kept the seasonal attacks going by labeling the Cabinet a “bunch of turkeys.” She said Starmer was no longer a caretaker PM but the “undertaker prime minister.” Bruising stuff. Last orders: Amid all the metaphorical tinsel and bells of holly, Starmer adopted a lawyerly tone on Labour’s support for pubs (even though many greasy spoons have banned Labour MPs) and condemned ongoing industrial action by resident doctors. But the Tory leader went out on (possibly) a new low by arguing Starmer “doesn’t have the baubles” to ban medical staff from striking and said all Labour MPs want “is a new leader.” Grab the mince pies: The prime minister’s speechwriters clearly did their homework with Starmer, not a natural on the humor front, comparing the Tories to “The Muppets Christmas Carol” and joking that all the defections meant Badenoch would be “left Home Alone.” Penalty shootout: Hold the homepage — PMQs actually delivered a news line. The PM confirmed the government issued a licence to transfer to Ukraine £2.5 billion of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich’s cash from his sale of Chelsea football club. Starmer told Abramovich to “pay up now,” or he’d be taken to court. Teal bauble: The end-of-year vibes allowed Starmer to deploy a festive jibe of advice to Reform UK: “If mysterious men from the East appear bearing gifts, this time, report it to the police!” Labour just won’t let ex-Reform UK Leader in Wales Nathan Gill’s conviction for pro-Russian bribery go. Even Nigel Farage, sat up above in the VIP public gallery, had a chuckle, admitting “that’s quite funny” to nearby hacks. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Tipton and Wednesbury MP Antonia Bance commended the government’s efforts to support the West Midlands by striking the U.S. trade deal, ripping into Reform. The PM just couldn’t resist another attack line against his party’s main opponent. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 8/10. Badenoch 5/10. The final PMQs exchange was never going to be a serious exchange, given the opportunity to make Christmas gags. The Tory leader followed a scattergun approach, highlighting the various broken promises, but none landed a blow. The PM, doubtless relieved to bag a few weeks away from the interrogation, brushed them off and used his pre-scripted lines to deliver a solid concluding performance.

LONDON — Unions founded Britain’s governing Labour Party. But that doesn’t mean they’ll always have its back. A year into Keir Starmer’s government, union reps can point to some big wins, including a dedicated workers’ rights bill and the cooling of several pay disputes that had simmered under the previous Conservative government. Yet unions are still pressing Labour for more, and ministers are quickly discovering that a flurry of above-inflation pay hikes is not enough to satiate them. A Labour MP on the left of the party, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said relations between Labour and the unions were now “strained to a degree” because of the stagnant state of the British economy. “There’s a fairly widespread sense of unhappiness about the direction of the country, and that obviously reads on to the Labour Party,” they said of the current union mood. STRIKING A BARGAIN  Labour won the July 2024 elections by a landslide, running on a ticket of “change”. On labor relations, the need for a shift was obvious. Under the Conservatives, millions of working days were lost as train drivers, doctors and teachers all walked out over pay and terms, while the government, citing concerns about Britain’s shaky public finances, resisted. Labour wanted to show swift action — and a jolt to straining public services — by settling pay claims with numerous public sector workers who were demanding the restoration of their pay to historic levels. Teachers received a 5.5 percent pay award, train drivers were handed a 15 percent multi-year uplift, and resident doctors got a 22.3 percent rise over two years on average. “It was an important signal of intent from the government,” reflects Trades Union Congress General Secretary Paul Nowak. His body represents 48 affiliated unions and roughly 5.5 million workers. “It was good for our members, but more importantly, it was good for public services and the people that rely on them.” A much-hyped Employment Rights Bill is also going through parliament. It promises to end some of the more insecure forms of work, ban “fire and rehire” schemes, and grant workers the right to challenge unfair dismissal from the day they start employment. Unions have welcomed involvement with the legislation, although some critics remain. The Labour MP cited above said the bill was far from perfect: “It doesn’t really deal with the collective rights which workers need to protect themselves fully.” TIGHTEN THE PURSE STRINGS  Union reps say that Labour has been much better at communicating with unions than its predecessors, although they argue this was a low bar to clear. “It’s been night and day in comparison to our relationship with the previous Conservative governments,” says Nowak. “This is clearly a government that actually sees a positive role for unions in a modern economy and sees us as part of the solution.”  Yet consulting is not the same as acting, and last year’s pay settlements may have already set a precedent. Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ tight fiscal rules mean this is an expectation the government is unlikely to meet. “We know how tight the fiscal position is, but we also know we’ve got a crisis in our public services that have been underfunded,” argues Nowak, who points to problems in recruiting and retaining staff. Britain has a series of independent pay review bodies tasked with examining the economic picture and recommending salary hikes for many public sector workers. Still, it is ministers who ultimately decide who receives the increases. This year, the body for resident doctors recommended a far more modest 5.4 percent increase for 2025-2026. Health Secretary Wes Streeting backed that call — and faced an immediate backlash. The British Medical Association, which represents doctors, branded the hike inadequate as it did not restore real-terms pay to 2008 levels. They’re already balloting members for strike action that could last at least six months, at a time when the government doesn’t need the headache. “The bedside manner is much better, but the NHS is still really sick,” says Emma Runswick, deputy chair of council at the BMA. “We have an NHS which is hemorrhaging staff because it’s eroded their pay so badly and it treats them so poorly.” Streeting, who is expected to unveil a 10-year reform plan for the publicly funded National Health Service this week, is urging doctors not to strike and instead to “work with the government.” But unions shouldn’t expect much. Although the health secretary says his door is open, Streeting has stressed there are no further funds for pay increases. “If you’re going to base yourself as the party who founded the NHS … where’s the action to back that up?” Runswick asks. A summer of strikes could make the growth Reeves desperately covets even harder to achieve. | Andy Rain/EPA-EFE For Labour MPs with a union background, this kind of punchy approach isn’t too surprising. “I don’t think that kind of rhetoric is uncommon in the trade union movement,” says Labour MP Steve Witherden, a former teacher who remains in a teaching union. “They’re obviously setting themselves up for a negotiating position.” “Even a trade union leader [who] might want to be able to be favorable to the Labour government … will be feeling the breath of their members down their necks,” says the Labour MP quoted at the top of this article. The Labour government, by standing firm against union demands, is betting that public opinion has shifted since past disputes. A YouGov poll of 4,100 adults in May found that 48 percent somewhat or strongly opposed resident doctors striking, compared to 39 percent somewhat or strongly supporting them. That’s a fall in support since a comparable YouGov poll was conducted last year. “If it’s a profession they admire and like and think makes a significant contribution, they tend to be favorable toward strike action,” says YouGov’s Head of European Political and Social Research Anthony Wells. But he adds: “While people hugely value doctors, doctors are also already seen as being relatively well paid, so they get far less support for strikes than nurses do.” “There’s an awful lot more that needs to be done,” said left-wing Labour MP Ian Lavery, a former National Union of Mineworkers president, regarding union discontent. “They’ve got to get their heads together.” It’s not just healthcare staff getting antsy. Refuse workers in the city of Birmingham have been on strike for over 100 days due to pay disputes, and the Unite union recently extended that strike mandate until December. National Education Union members also rejected the government’s 2.8 percent pay offer for teachers and leaders in April, with 83.4 percent of respondents saying they would be willing to take strike action. Labour is also treading a fine line with its workers’ rights package, as firms that are already smarting from increased taxes warn the bill’s measures could further dent the government’s growth agenda. The opposition Tories have promised to scrap the package if they return to power in the next election. SUMMER OF DISCONTENT? A summer of strikes could make the growth Reeves desperately covets even harder to achieve — and draw unfavorable historical comparisons. In the 1970s, Labour was effectively toppled for a generation by what became known as the “Winter of Discontent.” Garbage piled up on the streets, bodies weren’t buried, and health, rail and haulage workers made their anger known.  To avert a similar fate, some in the party say keeping unions on side is essential. “The most important thing about relations is that you always keep those channels of dialogue open,” Witherden argues. Garbage workers in Birmingham have been on strike for over 100 days due to pay disputes. | Andy Rain/EPA-EFE Nowak, who has been publicly supportive of much of the government’s agenda, argues that sorting out pay won’t be enough, particularly in the public sector. “There needs to be a longer-term, more strategic discussion … about what’s the future of the public sector workforce” on issues like flexible working and artificial intelligence, he says. “That’s the missing piece of the jigsaw for me.”  However, for a government already struggling to put out multiple fires, keeping the unions sweet will be easier said than done. “The fiscal framework which the government’s working to is incredibly tight,” said the anonymous Labour MP. “It’s difficult to see how they’re going to fund further pay rises that can meet people’s expectations.”

The European Union is gearing up to relax the rules around what sort of cancer-causing chemicals are allowed in cosmetics, in a red-tape slashing exercise that consumer groups warn could put people’s health at risk. In a draft proposal and accompanying document obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission proposes simplifying a set of EU chemical laws spanning cosmetics, fertilizer and chemical classification regulations in a “chemicals omnibus” bill. Along with tweaking rules around carcinogens in cosmetics, it would also simplify laws on advertising and labeling hazardous chemicals, requiring producers to put less precise information in ads and on the front of certain packaging. The proposal, which aims to create a “more predictable and less burdensome regulatory landscape,” is part of the EU’s broader simplification drive aimed at reducing “undue burden” on companies to help Europe’s businesses and boost the economy. The draft bill includes tweaks to the Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR), a law governing the safety of cosmetic products. Under the CPR, substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic — i.e. capable of changing genetic material — or toxic for reproduction are broadly banned in cosmetics with some exceptions in specific circumstances. The proposed revision will keep to that principle and derogations from the ban will still have to be assessed and found safe by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. But there are new caveats. If a substance only has those properties when inhaled or digested, for example — but not if it comes into contact with the human skin — it shouldn’t be automatically banned from use in cosmetics. Also, companies will no longer have to prove compliance with food safety requirements to receive a derogation for a substance. Food and cosmetics are “distinct products,” the Commission argues, and just because a product contains an inedible substance doesn’t mean that same chemical won’t be safe when used in a cosmetic formula to be applied on human skin. ‘A CONCERNING DIRECTION’ But the tweaks have not found favor among environmental and consumer groups. “The simplification proposal is taking a concerning direction for consumer protection by extending the use of cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics,” said Pelle Moos, senior advisor for the European Consumer Organisation, in an emailed statement. “Not only does this clash with consumers’ legitimate expectations to use safe products but also with the Commission’s commitment to maintain high standards of protection.” He called on the Commission to “reconsider and safeguard public health and consumer safety.” Cosmetics Europe’s director general John Chave declined to comment on the leaked document specifically, but stressed that the CPR “remains the international regulatory benchmark for safety” and that his industry “needs to ensure that our products are safe” as a “sacrosanct” principle. Still, he added, the current process allowing companies to get exemptions for chemicals from the automatic CPR ban “does not always allow the industry to demonstrate safety, for example because of vague criteria, or unrealistic deadlines.” “This can stop us from using substances which have been scientifically assessed as perfectly safe for use in cosmetics.” The omnibus would also simplify rules on how to classify, label and package chemicals under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation — which only entered into force in December. As previously reported by POLITICO, the proposal suggests loosening formatting, labeling and advertising requirements for hazardous chemicals. Originally, for example, the rules stipulated that any advertisement for hazardous substances must indicate the necessary hazard symbols and statements, on top of the statement: “Always follow the information on the product label,” for adverts to the general public. That would all be replaced by a simple sentence for adverts to the general public: “Always read the label and product information before use.” ClientEarth legal expert Julian Schenten said the Commission’s plans to revise its chemical classification, labeling and packing rules put “business interests ahead of people’s health and environmental safety.” Part of the Commission’s justification for doing away with certain labeling rules lies in reducing paper use for environmental reasons, which Schenten described as “absurd.” “Let’s be clear: cutting paperwork does not make toxic products any safer,” he added. “The reduction of administrative burden on companies should lead to societal gains in terms of wealth creation, employment and innovation,” argues the Commission in the draft document. “At the same time, the proposal seeks to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment.” The chemicals omnibus — alongside an “action plan” for Europe’s struggling chemicals industry — is now expected July 8.

LONDON — Keir Starmer hailed a “landmark deal” with the European Union back in May which he promised would slash red tape. One month on, however, and Starmer’s promises still seem like a distant dream in Northern Ireland, as businesses brace for yet more Brexit paperwork. From July 1, a whole raft of new food products sold in Northern Ireland will have to carry “Not for EU” labels as part of the third and final phase of a controversial labeling rollout. The rules — set out in the Windsor Framework deal between the U.K. and EU — are supposed to ensure that goods are not moved onward from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, an EU member country. But in light of the U.K. prime minister’s fresh EU deal, businesses are questioning why the new labels should be introduced at all. Under the terms of the deal agreed by Starmer, Britain is preparing to sign up to European single-market regulation on animal and plant health, known as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules, removing the need for the labeling. “We are being required to implement a very cumbersome and onerous regulation from July 1 until the date that the [SPS] deal is put into law, which may only be a matter of months,” said Roger Pollen, head of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland.  “There will almost certainly be manufacturers who will say: ‘No, we’re not doing that’, and stop supplying the market, leading to gaps on shelves and broken supply chains, simply because the EU are sticking on a point of principle despite the imminent SPS deal.” ‘FRANKLY FARCICAL’ The labels are deeply controversial for businesses, who claim they are not only off-putting to consumers but costly for manufacturers and “cataclysmic” for food exports.  The latest rollout will cover some fruit and vegetables, fish, and composite products such as pizzas and quiches. Meat and dairy products sold in Northern Ireland already carry the labels. The requirement was originally supposed to apply U.K.-wide, but that plan was scrapped last year following a huge backlash from businesses — with the caveat that they could be reimposed if supplies to Northern Ireland are detrimentally affected.  A senior retail figure, granted anonymity to speak freely, said industry was “furious at the government’s failure to stand up to the EU and demand that retailers be treated as trusted traders. If the U.K. and EU have agreed to align on SPS standards, then it is frankly farcical to proceed with phase-three labeling.” Meat and dairy products sold in Northern Ireland already carry the labels. | Janos Vajda/EPA A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, tasked with the implementation of the Windsor Framework, acknowledged that the need for the labels would likely be “diminished” as a result of any SPS agreement. “In the meantime,” they said, “it is important to implement the existing arrangements for the Windsor Framework and we will continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to support them in implementing these arrangements.” That message was hammered home at a recent meeting of the Specialised Committee on the Implementation of the Windsor Framework — co-chaired by the U.K. government and the European Commission — where both sides reiterated their commitment to the “full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework,” including the “correct implementation of the labelling safeguards.”  A Commission spokesperson said suspending the implementation of the Windsor Framework until an SPS agreement is reached “creates risks for the integrity of the EU internal market, which the EU does not accept. It is important to recall that the EU and the U.K. currently have different SPS rules. “Honouring existing agreements is a question of good faith, this is why the EU and the U.K. both committed to the full, timely and faithful implementation of existing international agreements between them,” they added. ‘EU HAS SHOWN NO COMPROMISE’ But the lack of flexibility has left industry disappointed — and in some cases blaming the EU.   “The EU has shown no compromise and insisted on ‘full and faithful’ implementation of the rules despite agreeing to probably remove them in the near future,” the retail figure said. “The government’s failure to resist this unreasonable behavior is extremely disappointing and U.K. consumers will end up bearing the costs [with] increased prices.” Pollen agreed. “The only people who can actually step in and be magnanimous about this are the EU and they’ve resolutely refused to do that so far.  “I think they should just be pragmatic and say: Look, we’ve reached this overarching agreement on SPS with the U.K. On that basis we are not going to require businesses supplying Northern Ireland to have to go ahead with phase-three labeling for a grace period of a year to 18 months. “Then, if the deal is ‘papered up’ in law by that stage, this bureaucratic labeling won’t be required at all.”  But a figure close to discussions about the future of the scheme — granted anonymity to speak freely — called for realistic expectations of when an SPS deal was likely to happen. “First of all, the U.K. needs to align itself to EU standards, where it has diverged,” they said. For example, the U.K. has authorized emergency use of certain pesticides that are banned in the EU. Some suppliers may decide to drop out of the Northern Ireland market altogether. | Mark Marlow/EPA “Then, on the EU side, the Commission will not have their mandate to get into technical discussions from the European Council until at least mid-Autumn and the European Parliament will want some sort of input into the technical process.  “Either way, those things aren’t going to happen overnight, and while relationships from the political agreement are still buoyant, the technical discussion will be much more intense and fervent.” ‘THROUGH-THE-LOOKING-GLASS POLICY’ Despite industry’s concerns, retailers are generally “well prepared — especially when it comes to own-brand products,” the same senior retail figure quoted earlier said. But they added that there are still a “considerable number of suppliers, including sizable brands who are not ready, and who don’t want to play ball.” While some suppliers may decide to drop out of the Northern Ireland market altogether, others are getting round the issue by bringing unlabeled goods through the “red lane,” a customs channel for goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain that are intended to move into the EU, where they face full EU customs checks. The absurdity isn’t lost on Pollen. “They [businesses] are prepared to go through that added bureaucracy just to ease a different type of bureaucracy. It’s through-the-looking-glass policy.” With the U.K. and EU unlikely to budge on labeling any time soon, Rod Addy, director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which represents food processing, manufacturing and trading companies, is pinning his hopes on a swift SPS deal.    “Our view would be that the government and industry need to quickly identify the most important sticking points and come up with quick fixes so the deal can be pushed through relatively quickly and business and government can enjoy the benefits in months, not years,” he said. 

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump is an equal-opportunity mercantilist. When it comes to the European Union’s €198 billion trade surplus with the United States, he’ll claw at any sector he can. Brandishing 25 percent tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, the U.S. president has demanded that the bloc buy more American cars, fossil fuels, weapons, pharmaceuticals — and food. “They don’t take our farm products, they take almost nothing and we take everything from them … tremendous amounts of food and farm products,” Trump complained to journalists in Florida earlier this month, decrying his country’s €18 billion deficit in agri-food trade with Europe. Taking more of the first four is feasible. The Commission can lower its 10 percent duty on imported automobiles, while EU countries can purchase less oil from Kazakhstan, fewer missiles from South Korea, and smaller drug batches from Switzerland. These demands would hurt local industry, but they are doable if Brussels wants to appease the irascible ultranationalist. The fifth is not. A range of culinary, phytosanitary and political obstacles bar the way to Europe’s importing most American staples — from Texan beef and Kentucky chicken to Wisconsin milk and Kansas wheat. Then there’s the fact the new EU commissioners for agriculture and animal welfare, Christophe Hansen and Olivér Várhelyi, want to tightly regulate agri-food imports. It may be a bitter pill for the president to swallow. But not even his “Art of the Deal” can vanquish Europe’s Art of the Meal. THE INVISIBLE HAND PICKS EUROPEAN FOOD  Contrary to what Trump says, the imbalance in agri-food trade isn’t due to unfair customs duties. U.S. and EU rates are similarly low for most products: zero for hard liquor, a few percent for wine and cereals, and 5 percent to 10 percent for fruits, vegetables, cured meats, confectionery, canned food and processed goods. The exceptions are EU dairy and pork (often upward of 20 percent), yet these aren’t areas where American rivals have much of a chance anyway, given that the EU runs a massive surplus in both categories (Germany and Spain are top exporters). Moreover, the U.S. is protective too — for example, on beef — and accepted higher EU dairy duties in the 1988 Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Why? Because it extracted a promise that the EU wouldn’t subsidize oilseed production. Why would that matter to the Americans? Because that’s what they’re best at cultivating. Farms in the U.S. are on average 10 times bigger than in the EU and are able to churn out raw materials: hunks of meat, blocks of cheese and silos full of cereals. However, apart from the odd Californian wine, the U.S. doesn’t have many specialty products to vaunt. Europe is the opposite: A mosaic of small, regionally diverse farms, its producers are uncompetitive in most commodities, but possess an advantage in traditional foods. For example, the continent has five times more “geographical indication” trademarks than the U.S., allowing its farmers to transform simple crops into premium goods.  It’s bad agribusiness but great gastronomy, which is the second reason Americans spend more on EU farm goods than vice versa. While Americans happily gobble and slurp European GIs, Europeans typically find U.S. foods too fatty, salty, sugary or alcoholic for their palates. “If you look at the product composition, it’s very different,” said John Clarke, until recently the EU’s top agricultural trade negotiator. “The EU exports mostly high-value products: wine, spirits, charcuterie, olive oil, cheese. The U.S. exports low-value commodities: soya, maize, almonds … the fact [these have] a lower unit value is a fact of life.” During Trump’s first term, a bad harvest in Brazil and Argentina at least gave Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker an opportunity to offer Washington an apparent concession: The EU would buy more American soybeans. Trump gleefully celebrated what was in fact a financial necessity for European farmers, who need soy for animal feed. This time that won’t work, though. Brazilian grain harvests are near record levels, while Ukraine is investing heavily in oilseeds. The Commission is rolling out a protein strategy that  encourages supply diversification and more domestic production. And Europeans are eating less red meat, dragging soybean demand down. PHYTOSANITARY PARANOIA If Trump wants Europeans to eat more American food, he’ll have to convince them to swallow something even tougher: U.S. food safety standards. Europeans might buy American software, movies and weapons, but they aren’t keen on U.S. beef pumped with hormones, chlorine-washed chicken or genetically modified corn. The main reason? Brussels’ precautionary principle — a regulatory approach that requires proof a product is safe before it can be sold. The U.S., by contrast, operates on a risk-based system, where anything not proven harmful is fair game. That divergence has created a trade minefield. American beef exports are capped at 35,000 metric tons annually under a special quota, thanks to an EU-wide ban on hormone-treated meat. U.S. poultry is largely locked out because of pathogen reduction treatments — a fancy way of saying Americans rinse their chicken in antimicrobial washes the EU deems unacceptable. Genetically modified crops, a staple of U.S. agribusiness, also face strict EU restrictions, requiring lengthy approvals and labeling rules that spook European consumers. Pesticides are another flash point. Today, over 70 different pesticides banned in the EU as toxic to human health and the environment remain widespread in U.S. grain and fruit farming. That includes chlorpyrifos, an insecticide linked to brain damage in children, and paraquat, a weedkiller associated with a higher long-term risk of Parkinson’s disease. As a result, Brussels imposes residue limits that frequently force U.S. growers to create separate, EU-compliant supply chains. While Trump may rage about tariffs and trade imbalances, it’s Brussels’ food safety regulations — not import duties — that are keeping much American food off European plates. And with the EU mulling even stricter crackdowns on imports that don’t conform to its standards, expect the transatlantic trade menu to get even leaner. DON’T ANGER THE FARMERS Trump may not be aware, but European capitals also witnessed furious farmer protests last year. Fear of foreign competition was one of the main triggers, with unions bitterly criticizing imports from Ukraine and South America’s Mercosur bloc for their looser production standards, laxer agrochemical use and cheaper agricultural land. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have still not lifted their illegal blockades on Ukrainian grain, and the Commission is in no position to force them to do so. In fact, Brussels has responded by making fair pricing for farmers the lodestar of its upcoming agri-food policy. The EU even wants to apply “mirror clauses” to imports to align rules on animal welfare and pesticides, according to a leaked draft of a long-term policy vision due out this week. A surge in U.S. imports would likely prompt the same attacks. These could be politically decisive ahead of stormy presidential races this year in Poland and Romania, two European breadbaskets, as well as major elections in France, Italy and Spain in the next two years.  So is there no solution to Trump’s hunger for agri-trade parity? It seems not, unless the president decides to massively expand the U.S. military’s presence in the EU, bringing tens of thousands more peanut butter-loving troops to defend the continent’s security. It’s a crazy idea of course. Then again … Giovanna Coi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission published its long-term “vision” for the European Union’s agriculture and food policy on Wednesday, setting out ambitions for a sector that has been at the center of political protests, trade tensions and regulatory headaches. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen’s paper lays out a roadmap through 2040, promising better conditions for farmers, fairer supply chains, and a rethinking of sustainability policies. “Food and farming are vital for Europe’s people, economy and society. We need the agri-food sector to flourish and compete in a fair global marketplace, with enough resilience to cope with crises and shocks,” Hansen said as he unveiled the plan.  “The roadmap we are presenting today sets out the path for tackling the many pressures that EU farmers face.” But while the EU executive wants to ease some regulatory burdens, it’s also laying the ground for bigger fights over trade rules, food pricing and supply chain fairness. Here are the five key takeaways from the EU’s master plan for agriculture: 1. MAKE FARMING ATTRACTIVE AGAIN (OR AT LEAST SURVIVABLE) European farmers are getting old: Just 12 percent are under 40, and many are struggling with low incomes, bureaucracy and volatile markets. Hansen’s vision acknowledges that, unless something changes, Europe won’t have enough farmers left by 2040 — or the ones who remain will just be fewer and bigger. His plan? Better pay, fewer administrative burdens and new income streams like carbon farming and bioeconomy projects to keep young people in the business. The Commission is also set to deliver a generational renewal strategy this year, focusing on easier access to land and financing for young farmers. A revamp of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2027 will be key to delivering on these promises. But there’s already an emerging fight over whether the CAP should remain a standalone fund in the EU budget or get folded into a larger money pot. The Commission is signaling a shift toward more targeted CAP support, prioritizing active farmers, young entrants and those producing essential food. There’s also talk of simplifying direct payments and adjusting subsidy distribution. The big question: Will this actually attract new farmers — or just stop existing ones from quitting? 2. THE FIGHT OVER FOOD CHAIN PROFITS ISN’T OVER Hansen’s vision takes aim at power imbalances in the food supply chain, signaling that the Commission isn’t done cracking down on unfair trading practices. Farmers have long argued that retailers and food manufacturers squeeze them on prices, forcing them to sell below production costs — a practice the Commission wants to curb further by revising the UTP directive. However, while farmer groups see this as essential, the Commission’s free-market hawks remain uneasy about an outright ban on below-cost sales that could distort competition. So, the vision emphasizes rules against “systematically” compelling below-cost sales, rather than writing a strict, blanket ban into law. The plan also includes a greater role for the new Agri-Food Chain Observatory to track who makes what margin in the food supply chain — a move that could add transparency, but also more friction, between farmers and bigger actors. And it’s not just farmers feeling squeezed. The Commission is also acknowledging concerns about rural workers, women in agriculture, and foreign laborers, saying the industry needs to be more attractive and fair. A Women in Farming platform will be launched, though it’s unclear how much impact it will have. There is also a call to improve conditions for low-wage workers in agriculture and food processing, but no new enforcement tools to back it up. Expect pushback from other players, like retailers and food manufacturers, who argue that higher farm-gate prices will drive up costs for consumers, but also concerns that the EU isn’t doing enough to protect farm and food-sector workers from low pay and poor conditions. 3. SUSTAINABLE CARROTS, NOT UNSUSTAINABLE STICKS The Commission wants farming to decarbonize and pollute less, but farmers should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem, the vision argues. That means fewer penalties and more incentives, while food companies and retailers should bear as much of the climate and environmental burden — though how they’ll be held accountable remains unclear. The slew of environmental derogation requests from farmers shows that “one-size-fits-all approaches” don’t work, the Commission says. That’s why the midyear CAP simplification will give EU countries more flexibility, shifting the CAP “away from conditions to incentives,” including for “streamlined” ecosystem services. The plan includes stronger support for carbon farming, bioenergy production, organic and agroecological practices, and the bioeconomy and circularity. Brussels also wants biopesticides and new genomic techniques to reach the market faster — with a proposal on biopesticides promised this year — while biotechnologies need scaling up. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should get a larger budget to speed up safety assessments and clear regulatory bottlenecks. That said, not all innovations are welcome. The paper warns that “certain food innovation is sometimes seen as a threat” — a not-so-subtle nod to cultivated meat. It “calls for an enhanced dialogue,” which effectively means a freeze. Meanwhile, livestock “is and will remain an essential part of” the EU’s food system, with its own dedicated “work stream” to boost competitiveness. Feed additives “will be essential” to making the sector more sustainable. 4. MORE HOMEGROWN FOOD AND FEED, AND A CRACKDOWN ON IMPORTS The final text slightly tones down some of the trade protectionist language from an earlier draft, but the Commission is still sounding the alarm over Europe’s dependency on imported agricultural inputs, from fertilizers to animal feed. Right now, the EU heavily relies on key fertilizer imports from Russia, Belarus and North Africa, while soy for animal feed comes mostly from South and North America. To fix this, Hansen’s vision includes a new protein strategy to boost EU-grown plant proteins, increased production of low-carbon and recycled fertilizers, and more investment in domestic agritech innovation. The Commission is also exploring the idea of food stockpiles — a move that signals greater concern for supply chain resilience. One of the most politically sensitive parts of the vision? A trade reciprocity plan is expected in 2025, outlining how the EU will enforce equal standards for imports on pesticides, animal welfare and sustainability. To back this up with enforcement, the Commission wants to set up a dedicated import control task force, working with member countries to strengthen border checks and prevent banned substances from entering the EU market. The challenge? Replacing imports without driving up costs — or setting off trade conflicts with key partners. But in a key change from the earlier leaked draft, there’s now no explicit ban on EU companies exporting toxic pesticides that are prohibited at home. Instead, the Commission will begin with an impact assessment, leaving open what future restrictions might look like. 5. CRUMBS FOR THE CONSUMER Neither food, nor consumers get much in the way of new rules. The Commission will propose strengthening the role of public procurement, though a desire stated in last week’s version to ditch the “cheaper is better” mentality has been deleted, emphasizing merely that procurers should seek the “best value.” The document calls for shorter supply chains. Eating healthy also means eating local, it argues, since unfortunately “food is more processed, eating habits are changing and supply chains have gotten longer.” For that reason, there will be a Food Dialogue with stakeholders every year to discuss product reformulation, food affordability and collecting data on dietary intake. The Berlaymont will launch a study on the health impact of ultra-processed foods and it intends to extend country-of-origin labeling. Another change from last week is a paragraph on how consumers should receive “trustworthy information” and that the EU will crack down on “misleading environmental claims and unreliable sustainability labels.” Consumers should also be “supporting farmers in the transition” toward more environmental production, since “markets fail to reward the progress already made.”  There is no mention of front-of-pack labeling (like the forgotten Nutri-Score), nutrient profiles for marketing sugary, salty and fatty products, or plant-based diets. CAN THIS VISION SURVIVE THE POLITICS? Brussels’ new vision is full of big promises — simpler rules for farmers, a more balanced food supply chain, a crackdown on unfair trade and a pivot to carrots over sticks on green rules. But in scrapping an explicit export ban on toxic pesticides and watering down rules on public procurement, the Commission shows it’s wary of imposing new hurdles that could spark backlash. That leaves a big question mark over whether this plan can actually change Europe’s farming model — and if it will do enough to ease the concerns of farmers, consumer groups and environmental campaigners.  With the upcoming CAP reform, looming budget fights and intense trade negotiations ahead, it won’t be an easy harvest for Hansen. This story has been updated.

THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET IS A LIE Italy’s food is supposed to be the world’s healthiest. So why are so many of its kids obese? By ALESSANDRO FORD in Nicotera, Italy CGI illustration by Chan Yu Chen for POLITICO It’s the most famous diet in the world. It might also be the most misunderstood, I think, as I scarf ink-black spaghetti al nero di seppia, savor a Lamezia red and drizzle olive oil on Calabrian ’nduja meatballs. Cerulean blue waters bob below, flecked by the basil green of nearby Sicily and the Aeolian Islands. I chew fast so my dining companion can deliver another helping of history. “This cuisine dates back millennia,” declares a proud Antonio Montuoro, president of the International Academy of the Mediterranean Diet. Food is just a part of it though. “The other parts are the panorama, the beauty of nature, our historic centers, our heritage,” he enthuses, extracting his fork from a potato peperonata to point at the scenery around us.  “All this is part of the lifestyle of the Mediterranean diet,” the 72-year-old explains serenely, mopping tomato sauce off his plate with a thick hunk of artisanal bread.  It’s a beautiful story and a terrific seasoning for our meal. The only problem is it’s not true. Fifty years since the term was coined by the American physiologist Ancel Keys — and a decade and a half after UNESCO recognized it as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity — the Mediterranean diet has become a mishmash of hyperbole, half-truths and howlers, stirred together for political and commercial ends. Advertisement Amid backlash against the Green Deal and agricultural protectionism hardening across Europe, southern politicians and lobbies have weaponized a series of recipes and ingredients to fry the European Union over its liberal climate and trade policies, while boosting lucrative — and often unhealthy — exports to America and Asia. Italian politicians have always been sensitive about food, but Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has taken that to new extremes, pursuing a vendetta in Brussels against attempts to cut meat consumption, draft warnings against booze and pick a common front-of-pack nutrition label for the EU. The right-wing figure claims ad nauseam that these stigmatize her ancestral food traditions, and has stoked a gastronationalist frenzy to enlarge support for her Brothers of Italy party. Public health has greatly suffered in Italy as a result. The country struggles with one of the EU’s highest rates of childhood obesity. One-tenth of citizens drink alcohol daily, and salt overconsumption costs it more than France, Spain and Greece combined, according to a recent report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.  Compare modern Italian eating with the original idea of the Mediterranean diet and you reach an unavoidable truth: The Mediterranean diet is dead.   So why do we keep hearing about it? CUCINA POVERA There are two competing theories on how the Mediterranean diet was born. Both begin with Ancel Keys, its founding father. A Colorado-born polymath with PhDs in biology and physiology, Keys got his start in the world of nutrition in the 1930s, developing a portable provision for United States troops as they prepared to enter the World War II (the famous “K-ration”). An energy-dense brick of sausage and sweets, the K-ration was hardly salutary. But then neither was contemporary American food, whose fatty abundance was killing middle-class men in droves. At the time, doctors were baffled: This was the best-fed cohort of the richest nation on Earth. What was going on? Keys and his chemist wife Margaret figured it was down to diet, specifically too many saturated fats, and in 1951 they flew to southern Italy to prove it. A colleague had told them working-class Neapolitans rarely suffered from heart attacks and generally lived longer than, say, Minnesotan executives. The Keys measured the locals’ serum cholesterol. It was much lower.  Advertisement But correlation isn’t causation, so the couple set up a pilot study in Nicotera, a sunny seaside town at the toe of the Italian boot. The Keys recruited 35 families and, for the next three years, took blood samples, calculated body mass and ambushed Nicoterans at mealtimes to see what — and how much — they were really eating.  It was “cucina povera” (peasant cooking), described Montuoro, whose relatives remember being accosted by the peculiar foreign researchers. Everything they ate was local and organic, rooted in traditional recipes furnished by subsistence farming.  The results of Keys’ research were incredible. Besides scarce coronary disease, the experiment found minimal cancers or degenerative illnesses. Off the back of their findings, scientists organized the “Seven Countries Study,” the largest epidemiological investigation in history, spanning 12,000 men across three continents. It turned the Keyses into celebrities, and the couple put out several bestselling cookbooks. “How to Eat Well and Stay Well the Mediterranean Way” was published in 1975, bringing a cornucopia of rustic dishes to the overfed households of industrial America. Idyllic imagery was key to its success, helping blow the notion of la dolce vita across the Atlantic. This contributed to a dramatic fall in heart attacks, saving thousands and spurring the global rise of Italian food. Freshly picked tomatoes at a Mutti factory near Parma. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images So far, so good. Where the two theories split is on what the Keys really found in Nicotera. Orthodoxy holds that the American duo discovered a fantastically nourishing, mostly plant-based regimen centered on moderation and communal eating, as well as a food pyramid much like the one we all saw as children. According to their data, young men got one-third of their daily intake from cereals, one-third from fruit and vegetables, one-fifth from wine, and one-tenth from animal proteins and olive oil. Sugar and salt were negligible. It’s the dominant interpretation and the one modern nutritionists rely on when they assert that the Mediterranean diet is the world’s healthiest. But there’s another version. Backed by iconoclastic academics and anthropologists, this rendering argues that Ancel Keys’ books were never meant to be descriptive — they were prescriptive. “Italians have never practiced the Mediterranean diet,” said Alberto Grandi, author of “Italian Food Doesn’t Exist” and professor at the University of Parma. “The goal is to make Americans eat better and so [Keys] builds an ideal food model,” a fictional amalgam of ingredients cultivated around the Mediterranean basin, insisted Grandi. The diet wasn’t discovered so much as invented — and Nicoterans’ leanness was due to a different ingredient: hunger. Advertisement Keys “went to the people’s houses and people were ashamed. They’d say ‘Come back tomorrow because today we won’t eat anything.’ Or they’d only have polenta or chestnut flour,” Grandi contends. Claiming such individuals enjoyed some ancient, gastronomic elixir is “really offensive to the memory of our grandparents and great-grandparents. Because they went hungry.” It’s a controversial take that has made Grandi notorious in Italy. Several of my interviewees dismissed the northern academic as an attention-grabbing sensationalist. Others, however, backed him, citing archeological evidence, Keysian exegesis and parental memories. It’s impossible to know for sure and, in a way, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that while the Mediterranean diet may stand above others in eminence, its feet are mired in mystery. And for many, that’s convenient, since this ambiguity has been crucial in transforming the coarse peasant cooking of mid-century Nicotera into the slick brand of mass marketing we know today. CUCINA COMMERCIALE Icons take time to build and the Mediterranean diet was no different. Affluent, modish northerners initially laughed at the Keyses’ notion that they should imitate the impoverished, backward south, said John Dickie, professor of Italian studies at University College London and author of “Delizia: The Epic History of Italians and Their Food.” It took twenty turbulent years to change their minds. First was the economic miracle of the 1960s, which industrialized Italy at the same time as agriculture’s “green revolution” drove people from farms to factories. Next were the “years of lead,” during which anarchists and mafiosi bombed the state. Then came the financial crash triggered by the 1970s oil crisis. Overwhelmed, Italians turned to a mythical past, embracing folksy foods and a culinary crusade for so-called “authenticity.” “What we associate with the Italian diet, these supposed traditions, loads of them date from the [period] when Italians have left peasant living far behind and covered it with a nostalgia for the countryside,” said Dickie.  An anti-American backlash followed. The Slow Food movement erupted in 1986 after a McDonald’s opened in central Rome. Angry at the “banalization of food,” the left-wing peasant alliance wanted a return to Italy’s gastronomic lineage, including the increasingly well-known Mediterranean diet, said Barbara Nappini, the current president of Slow Food Italy.  Right-wingers liked that too, and they soon adopted the lingo. Farmer unions and food companies spotted the opportunity and lobbied the European Economic Community — the forerunner to the EU — for intellectual property protection and overseas promo, which they received in the 1990s. Yet even as the largely meat-free Mediterranean diet attracted burgeoning interest from the medical profession, in the popular imagination, it was growing ever more open to interpretation. The health craze of the 1990s stamped the diet into fitness magazines, which were less fussy about animal proteins. Meat and cheese slowly acquired more prominence, as did olive oil, while fruits and vegetables were gradually passed over.  “Europeans’ heritage fever begins,” remembered Michele Fino, a winegrower and professor of European law. “Cheeses, cured meats, vegetable preserves, baked goods, pasta — a whole, huge range.” Along with wine, these are the moneymakers, creating more added value and netting more profit than the humble cereals, fruits and vegetables promoted by the Keyses. They are also the less healthy products though, meant to be consumed sparingly. It was around this time that the World Health Organization classified alcohol as a carcinogen, for which there is no safe level of use (processed meat got the same grade in 2015, with red meat listed as “probably carcinogenic”). By the time UNESCO recognized the diet as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity in 2010, a mental switch had been made. In theory, UNESCO recognition isn’t intended to confer any commercial benefit. In practice, this one endorsed — and unleashed — one of the world’s most successful brands. “The Mediterranean Diet” became synonymous with “Mediterranean food” — as if whatever Italians ate was wholesome by definition. The Galbani cheese plant in Casale Cremasco, near Milan. | Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images That year Italian agri-food exports totaled a modest €27 billion, topped by fresh fruit and vegetables (over €4 billion in value), which were roughly still on par with meat, cheese and processed pastas combined. Over a decade later, exports have tripled, streaking past €70 billion last year. The composition has also flipped. Wine dominates the ranking (€8 billion), followed by pastas and dough-based goods (€7 billion), dairy (€6 billion), and processed vegetables (tomato sauces and such). Fresh produce has grown too, though not as much as cured meats and olive oil, which now account for a couple of billion each. This evolution has been mirrored by a shift in how Italians eat. Supermarket shelves in the country have swollen with doughy snacks and processed sauces, sparking an obesity and overweight crisis. Southerners and children have been particularly affected, with the latter ranked Europe’s second-most obese (behind kids in Cyprus and just ahead of neighboring Greece, Croatia and Spain). Ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks undoubtedly play a big role, but so do local staples. While it is convenient to blame fatness on foreign imports, under-18s are also the highest meat, dairy, pasta and dessert consumers, as well as the least careful about excess salt and the lowest fruit and vegetable eaters, according to the country’s statistics institute.  The plates of today’s Nicoteran children are more likely to hold a gelato than a tomato. Yet that hasn’t stopped companies waving the diet around to flog foods their grandparents would’ve hardly recognized. “Mediterranean diet sets records on world tables,” crowed Coldiretti, Italy’s largest farmer union, in a press release this month, as it celebrated the boom in sales of trademarked wines, olive oil and factory-made pastas. According to Massimiliano Giansanti, the head of Italy’s third-largest farmer union, Confagricoltura, it’s all gravy. When I asked whether people were confusing terms, he admitted “there’s a potential risk,” but he argued we shouldn’t tell people what to eat. “We’re exporting the products of our Mediterranean diet to the world,” he concluded proudly. CUCINA POLITICA Italians are said to have two obsessions: football and food. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi famously exploited the first, scoring big electoral points by manipulating the craze for calcio (his Forza Italia party was named after a football chant). Giorgia Meloni has taken to the second, cooking up a pungent gastronationalism with her Agriculture Minister and ex-brother-in-law Francesco Lollobrigida. Meloni was berating Brussels about food before she came to power, making attacks on the Farm to Fork strategy, the agricultural arm of the Green Deal, into a pillar of her platform. Addressing a European Parliament event in 2021, the then-opposition politician alleged there were “discriminatory policies” against meat, referring to EU plans to cut livestock emissions and encourage more sustainable, plant-based diets. Advertisement The European Commission also wanted to establish a bloc-wide food label to help consumers make better choices. The top contender was France’s Nutri-Score, which provided shoppers with a simple, five-color nutritional rating from green to red. Meloni denounced it as “crazy,” arguing it favored French products and unfairly penalized Italian staples, like salami, Parmigiano Reggiano and olive oil (in reality, these fatty products got the same score as their French counterparts). Lobbies like Coldiretti and Confagricoltura had a solution though. Researchers had amassed evidence that the Mediterranean diet (the all-but-vegetarian one) was among the world’s healthiest. Italy’s money-spinning meats and cheeses were still in its matrix, no matter how minimal. Why not just say the Nutri-Score clashed with the unassailable Mediterranean diet?  So Meloni did. After her landslide victory in October 2022, she marshaled a multipronged influence effort in Brussels to bury the front-of-pack labeling legislation. While Lollobrigida fulminated at the monthly meeting of agricultural ministers, Meloni’s lawmakers joined flash mobs and demonstrations outside. Italian politicians have always been sensitive about food, but PM Meloni has taken that to new extremes. | Adnan Beci/AFP via Getty Images There, Coldiretti and Confagricoltura staff heaved signs saying “Italian produce = quality” and “No to Nutri-Score.” Behind the scenes, the Italian ambassador also met with Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski — part of Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists political family — and pressed him to scrap the labeling law. Days later, the Pole’s chief of staff emailed the health commissioner, who was leading on the file, to argue against the French system, according to documents recently released to NGOs in a freedom-of-information act.  “It was the hijacking of the Mediterranean diet,” Serge Hercberg, a professor at the Sorbonne and the inventor of Nutri-Score, told me over the phone. “They knew it was false. They had to know. But by force of repetition, they thought they’d be able to convince, and they did.” More than 300 scientists published a report refuting the allegations in 2023, but by then it was too late. The Commission shelved the law. “It’s Goebbels’ line,” said Hercberg. “Repeat a line often enough and it becomes the truth.”  The playbook was so successful that Rome repeated it with alcohol, insisting the Commission’s intention to put cancer warnings on booze violated the Mediterranean diet.  Advertisement Historically, they had more of a point here given the liver-curdling quantities of booze that Nicoterans drank, but scientifically the research had moved on. We now know coastal communities were not healthy because of wine drinking but in spite of it. No matter. The Commission dropped that plan as well. Ireland eventually went it alone, facing a barrage of Italian criticism, with Lollobrigida claiming it was a protectionist conspiracy to bash wine in favor of local whiskey (despite the fact they will bear the same label). Lollobrigida also attacked lab-grown meat and went after veggie sausages, banding together with far-right parties in Spain, France, Hungary and Poland to harangue Brussels over its supposed attempts to dismantle national food traditions.  As absurd as the accusations were, they’ve won hearts and minds. Right-wing or left, nearly every single Italian I spoke to for this article was opposed to Brussels’ agri-food policies. They were convinced their cooking was among the world’s healthiest and that obesity was imported by foreign corporations. That’s partly true. But it’s also partly false, and until Italians acknowledge they are no longer eating as their ancestors did, they and their kids will be the ones paying the price. The Mediterranean diet is dead. Somebody please tell the Italians. Giovanna Coi contributed to this report. Advertisement

LONDON — Elon Musk just can’t help himself. When he’s not beefing with top Republicans, the X owner and Donald Trump ally likes to spend his time sticking his oar into the affairs of overseas governments — to much annoyance. Here are 13 times (unlucky for some) the tech billionaire picked a fight with politicians outside the United States. UK What began as a top relationship between fellow tech bros Elon Musk and Rishi Sunak soon went south when Keir Starmer succeeded Sunak as U.K. prime minister. Just weeks into Labour’s administration, Musk claimed “civil war is inevitable” in the country — and things kept sliding from there. Musk claimed Britain was a “tyrannical police state;” branded Starmer “twotierkeir” over the policing of far-right protests; warned the U.K. was going “full Stalin” by tweaking inheritance tax rules for farmers; called for the prime minister to be imprisoned over the state’s response to child sexual exploitation; and branded Starmer’s safeguarding minister a “rape genocide apologist.” Otherwise it’s been plain sailing. Starmer could perhaps have had a word of warning from Scotland’s Humza Yousaf. The ex-first minister, one of Britain’s most prominent Muslim politicians, was branded “super-super racist” by Musk in response to a speech Yousaf made about structural racism in Scotland. “Scotland gave him everything and yet he loathes white people,” Musk charged. Musk even found time to fall out with a supposed ally. This past weekend he called for Reform UK leader Nigel Farage — a top Trump acolyte — to be replaced atop the party because he’s not sufficiently keen on jailed far-right agitator Tommy Robinson. Farage insists they can still be pals. GERMANY Nothing soothes a general election campaign like Musk mouthing off. With Germans due to vote next month, the tech billionaire caused a major stir by throwing his weight behind the far-right Alternative for Germany party, claiming only the AfD “can save Germany.” That drew short shrift from embattled incumbent Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who claimed Musk’s prized free speech means “you can say things that are not right and do not contain good political advice.” The Tesla tech boss predicted last November that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “will be gone in the upcoming election.” | Dave Chan/Getty Images Election frontrunner Friedrich Merz also laid into Musk, calling the X owner’s comments “intrusive and presumptuous.” Musk is now planning a discussion on his X platform with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s pick for chancellor. Scholz’s latest approach to Musk? “Don’t feed the troll.” UKRAINE Musk’s definitely-fully-thought-through plan for solving the war in Ukraine has received a … mixed reception. In October 2022 he used the classic military strategy of a poll on X to canvass random users on the viability of holding elections in regions of the country occupied by Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not impressed, responding sarcastically with a poll on whether people prefer a Musk who supports Russia or Ukraine. A call between Trump and Zelenskyy after the U.S. election — with Musk listening in — won’t have been at all awkward then. CANADA Newsflash: One Musk prediction turned out to be correct. The Tesla tech boss predicted last November that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “will be gone in the upcoming election.” Trudeau, as it turns out, won’t even make it to election day, resigning as PM on Monday after more than nine years in power. Musk won’t miss him, labelling the outgoing Liberal Party leader “an insufferable tool” after he called Trump’s re-election a setback for women’s rights. AUSTRALIA Even politicos down under can’t escape Musk’s hot takes, although at least these were on areas you might expect a tech entrepreneur to have a view. Musk hit out at plans to ban children from social media platforms, calling it a “backdoor way to control access to the internet,” and disparaging the Aussie government as “fascists” for pushing legislation aiming to regulate misinformation on social media. The government rejected his criticism, with one minister saying their job is “not to come up with a social media policy to please Elon Musk.” Don’t tell him that! German election frontrunner Friedrich Merz also laid into Elon Musk, calling the X owner’s comments “intrusive and presumptuous.” | Sean Gallup/Getty Images BRAZIL Brazil went further than Australia and temporarily blocked Musk’s X altogether last year after he refused to ban accounts that had spread misinformation about the 2022 Brazilian presidential election. Opponents of the ban said the accounts were targeted for political reasons. In retaliation, Musk fired X’s Brazilian staff and shut the firm’s local office — though the ban was lifted after X paid £3.8 million in fines (chickenfeed for the world’s richest man) and blocked the accounts in question. An officially endorsed X account still exists to document “unlawful directives issued by Alexandre de Moraes,” the judge who ordered the social media shutdown. Musk has posted memes of de Moraes as Voldemort and compared him to Darth Vader. IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND Musk’s posts are at least creative. Happily wading into one of the most sensitive conflicts of modern times, Musk mocked the Irish Republican Army (IRA), calling it “as scary as a plush toy” for all that it used to be “so hardcore.” He also praised an anti-immigration rally in Dublin, claiming: “The people of Ireland are standing up for themselves!” ROMANIA The canceled Romanian presidential election — shelved as authorities cited “aggressive” hybrid attacks from Russia — drew Musk’s ire. “How can a judge cancel an election and not be considered a dictator?” he fumed. Musk’s new boss, to be sure, would never quibble with something as sacred as an election. DENMARK/GREENLAND Trump has for years expressed an interest in acquiring the Danish overseas territory of Greenland, which he calls an “absolutely necessity” for American security. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is, unsurprisingly, not a huge fan of this idea. On Tuesday, with Trump’s son Donald Jr. visiting the island, she said that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” Musk had his say on X too, writing: “If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!” NETHERLANDS Musk’s preference for hanging out with hard-right figures was on show yet again during his chinwag with Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who has long campaigned on an anti-Islam and anti-migration platform. The X owner highlighted the country’s low birth rate and claimed that “the Dutch nation will die out by its own hand.” With 12 children of his own, Musk should have plenty of useful tips for the demure Dutch. VENEZUELA Venezuela’s firebrand left-wing President Nicolás Maduro banned X for 10 days last August after coming to blows with Musk. The X owner branded Maduro a “dictator” and a “clown” and accused him of “major election fraud.” To be fair, that last bit is also the assessment of the current U.S. administration. In his pre-X era, Elon Musk mocked then-Finnish PM Sanna Marin for visiting a nightclub in late 2021 when exposed to someone with Covid-19. | Markku Ulander and Lehtikuva/Getty Images FINLAND In his pre-X era, Musk mocked then-Finnish PM Sanna Marin for visiting a nightclub in late 2021 after being exposed to someone with Covid-19. His meme included a picture of two young adults in a nightclub with the captions: “So what do you do for a living? I am the Prime Minister of Finland.” He followed up with a post saying Marin “seems cool,” prompting the then-PM to talk up her country’s climate cred. THE EU As if going after one country at a time wasn’t enough of a challenge, Musk squabbled with the entire European Union. Back in October he got into an online spat with outgoing European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová, calling her “the epitome of banal, bureaucratic evil.” That was after she dubbed him a “promoter of evil” amid a host of regulatory fights over X. Musk has also attacked the newly appointed European Commission as “undemocratic” and said the European Parliament should “not give up authority” to it. His decision to host German far-right leader Weidel on a livestream is already drawing furious reactions from European Union leaders and lawmakers — and the Commission is under pressure to throw its hefty digital rulebook at him. One final note to readers: You can always log off and go outside for a bit.

LONDON — When Donald Trump won in 2016, social media got the blame. Not this time. Trump’s first victory in the U.S. presidential election that year — plus the shock vote in the U.K. to leave the European Union — had the chattering classes on both sides of the Atlantic scrambling for an explanation. They soon found social media. In the case of Brexit, the argument went, voters were brainwashed by shadowy data outfit Cambridge Analytica; in the case of Trump, it was Russian trolls. “Everyone was saying technology is to blame,” said Reece Peck, associate professor of journalism and political communication at the City University of New York. “These algorithms are to blame.”  What followed was almost a decade of alarm over disinformation, with legislators agonizing over which ideas social media platforms should allow to propagate, and hand-wringing at how this was all irrevocably corroding the foundations of society. A vibrant cottage industry — dubbed “Big Disinfo” — sprang up to fight back against bad information. NGOs poured money into groups pledging to defend democracy against merchants of mistruth, while fact-checking operations promised to patrol the boundaries of reality. Not everyone was convinced of the threat, however.  In the days after the 2016 election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said there was “a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw fake news.” Eight years later, after Trump’s decisive second victory, Zuckerberg’s view is newly resonant. This time around, “there’s no big mystery, like, wow, why did this happen?” said Kelly McBride, a media ethics researcher at the Poynter Institute. “Nobody was tricked into voting for Donald Trump.”  But Trump’s victory is just the latest blow to the Big Disinfo narrative that gained prominence in the intervening years. THE DISINFO BOOM The study of disinformation predates 2016, but the field underwent a renaissance post-Trump — newly animated by the possibilities of social media brainwashing. In the days after the 2016 election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said there was “a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw fake news.” | Jim Watson/Getty Images The focus quickly shifted from disinformation — mistruths spread intentionally to deceive — to the broader and more pervasive category of misinformation, which percolates unwittingly through the populace.   The clamor only grew when the Covid pandemic hit, triggering the “infodemic” — the avalanche of mistruths President Joe Biden warned was “killing people.” It culminated in the ejection of Donald Trump from a number of social media platforms following the Jan. 6, 2021 attempted insurrection. Four years later and Trump is once again president-elect (and back on Facebook), vaccine skepticism is rising, and trust in the media continues its precipitous decline. Against this backdrop, misinformation researchers are beginning to question the utility of their field.  There is currently a “crisis in the field of misinformation studies,” announced an October article in Harvard University’s Misinformation Review.  “For almost a decade,” misinformation has been a central fixation of political elites, non-profits and the media, the authors wrote. Despite this, “it can sometimes feel as if the field is no closer to answering basic questions about misinformation’s real-world impacts, such as its effects on elections or links to extremism and radicalization.” Foundational issues such as how to define misinformation are still vexing the field, the authors note.  The work is frustrated by “incredibly polarizing” conversations on the role misinformation plays in society. For example, whether “Facebook significantly shaped the results of 2016 elections” — which, eight years on, is still inconclusive, although studies have cast doubt on Russian bot farms having had much to do with it.   FRACTURING UNDER SCRUTINY Experts trying to unpick major political events are starting to cast their nets wider. “I think people within the field have come to realize that information and how it shapes our views of the world is certainly an important thing to understand,” said Felix Simon, communication researcher and research fellow in AI and Digital News at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.  “But it’s not the only factor, and in many cases not even the most important factor, driving political decisions, even including those that we personally might find problematic.” This isn’t the only premise that has started to fracture under scrutiny.  At its zeitgeisty zenith, the field’s assumptions could be distilled as follows: Bad actors are circulating incorrect information online, people are unwittingly absorbing it, and their beliefs and behaviors are changing for the worse.  The antidote was to correct the falsehoods, first and foremost through exerting pressure on social media platforms to remove or otherwise flag or de-prioritize the offending content.  The clamor only grew when the Covid pandemic hit, triggering the “infodemic.” | Chris Delmas/Getty Images The problem was new because social media was new and was exerting novel influences on how people behaved. It was a pervasive problem that held significance for society at large.   The prevailing view among journalists and scholars was that it was a “bottom-up” problem: Nefarious actors, possibly funded by hostile foreign states, were polluting the bedrock of public discourse, contaminating the rest of the ecosystem.  “There was the ‘sky is falling’ view coming out of the 2016 election [which was] exacerbated by the fact that this was the home turf of the major media, so it seemed especially important to journalists,” said Matthew Baum, professor of global communications at Harvard University.  A 2022 Pew survey found that 71 percent of journalists thought made-up news and information was a “very big problem,” compared to 50 percent of American adults.   But studies since then have revealed that the most egregious misinformation only tends to be consumed by a small swath of highly invested, conspiratorially-inclined people. “It’s not always the case that people believe and do bad things because they were exposed to bad information about it,” Baum said. “People often bring attitudes and opinions to the table and then seek out information that is consistent with them.” AN AGE-OLD PROBLEM It should be noted that the most powerful misinformation isn’t spread solely by anonymous internet trolls. Instead, “the most consequential misinformation tends to come from prominent, powerful domestic actors, top politicians,” said Rasmus Nielsen, professor at the Department of Communication of the University of Copenhagen. The majority of this information isn’t outright lies, either, but is more likely to be nuggets of truth framed or decontextualized in a misleading way. And it’s not restricted to social media. “Many of these claims are made at campaign rallies,” Nielsen said. “They’re made in televised debates or other forms of media coverage.” It’s also not a new problem. Baum said he shows students a Harper’s Magazine article trumpeting the dangers of fake news to democracy — dated October 1925.   Many expressed doubts over the social media hypothesis from the beginning. “For those who study political communication, I think that framing was always kind of odd,” Nielsen said.  Economists were more likely to point to the long tail of destruction wrought by the 2008 financial crisis to explain the populist surge and unexpected 2016 electoral results, than a rotten informational diet.  FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who has been tapped by President-elect Trump to serve as FCC chairman, has already begun to take action to dismantle “the censorship complex.” | Riccardo Savi/Getty Images for Concordia Summit Research conducted in the interim has helped vindicate the skeptics. “It’s created kind of a revisionist view in the field that … maybe this isn’t the biggest danger we’re facing,” Baum said. Some scholars believe the unavoidable subjectivity involved in defining “misinformation” renders it inappropriate as a field of scientific inquiry altogether.  “Although misleading information is widespread and harmful, there can’t be — more precisely, there shouldn’t be — a science of misleading content,” wrote Dan Williams, an assistant professor in philosophy at the University of Sussex, earlier this year.  It’s misguided to attempt to measure people’s exposure to misleading content or their “susceptibility” to it, Williams wrote. “And it is extremely misguided to delegate the task of determining which true claims are nevertheless misleading to a class of misinformation experts.” POLITICAL HEADWINDS  While the field has struggled internally with these issues it has also faced an external onslaught from Republicans in the U.S., which many say has had a chilling effect.  Republicans have staged legal challenges contending that misinformation scholars coordinated with the administration of outgoing President Joe Biden to censor legal speech during the Covid pandemic. A Supreme Court decision last year ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the right to sue over the issue, while leaving unaddressed the central question of whether the interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms were permitted by U.S. law. But the attacks have had consequences. The Stanford Internet Observatory, which conducted high-profile work on election-related misinformation, was wound down after being targeted by lawsuits and Congressional subpoenas from Republicans. Aggressive action against groups working on misinformation and social media platforms is likely to continue. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who has been tapped by President-elect Trump to serve as FCC chairman, has already begun to take action to dismantle “the censorship complex.”  Meanwhile, sensing the sea change, platforms have slowly adapted their approach to misinformation.  Following his skeptical comments in the wake of the 2016 election, Zuckerberg quickly shifted his stance on “fake news.” In the years that followed he became ever more responsive to pressures to remove problematic content from Meta platforms, culminating in the suspension of Trump following the storming of the U.S. Capitol in 2021. In 2023, YouTube, X and Meta stopped labeling or removing posts that repeated Donald Trump’s claims. Brendan Smialowski | Getty Images Since then, the pendulum has swung back in the other direction. Trump’s profile was quietly reinstated in 2023 with additional monitoring. It was restored in full ahead of the election last year.  Last August, Zuckerberg sent a letter to congressional Republicans expressing regret that Meta had complied with pressure from the Biden administration to censor content related to Covid-19. He claimed the company was “ready to push back” next time. “Someone like Zuckerberg, he just goes with the flow in power. He doesn’t have any particularly strong political opinions beyond a commitment to wealth and government deregulation,” said Alice Marwick, director of research at Data & Society, a nonprofit research institute.  Elon Musk’s disdain for content moderation on X has also hastened the shift in industry standards and contributed to other platforms cutting back on content policing. In 2023, YouTube, X and Meta stopped labeling or removing posts that repeated Trump’s claims. YouTube said it would no longer remove videos falsely saying the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump.  On Meta’s newest platform, Threads, users have greater control over whether they see controversial or conspiratorial content. Bluesky, the platform currently picking up disaffected former Twitter users, takes the same approach.  Proponents of robust content moderation have criticized the changes, but the policing of political speech was always controversial. When Trump was first removed from Facebook, many world leaders decried the move as censorship.  And some scholars have pointed out that Big Disinfo’s roots, forged in a partisan revolt against Trump, led to glaringly one-sided speech prescriptions. “Misinformation researchers have not transcended the partisan origins of the misinformation discourse to develop an unbiased and reliable procedure for separating misinformation from true information,” wrote Joseph Uscinski, professor of political science at Miami University, in 2023.  This has resulted in the field’s “inadvertent tendency to take sides in the polarized political debates it attempts to study” and the “asymmetrical pathologization of what we, the researchers, consider to be false beliefs.” FROM FACTS TO STORIES While social media hasn’t dominated the election post-mortem this time around, misinformation — and discussion of it — has still been a feature. Trump and high profile supporters like Elon Musk have repeated baseless rumors about immigrants eating pets, for example.  Elon Musk’s disdain for content moderation on X has also hastened the shift in industry standards and contributed to other platforms cutting back on content policing. | Evaristo Sa/Getty Images Despite the best efforts of the anti-misinfo movement, this kind of rhetoric has gone mainstream since 2016.  “The country’s public discourse has shifted to the right, so you no longer have to look at fringe spaces to hear anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-feminist sentiment, anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ sentiment, that stuff is being espoused by people across the elite,” Marwick said.  But to what extent this can be blamed on social media is still an open question. “Polarization,” once painted as a global crisis stemming from online platforms, now looks more like a product of the highly idiosyncratic political and media culture in the U.S. One recent study found that polarization stayed the same or decreased in almost every other country from 1980 to 2020.  Teasing out the impact of misinformation on electoral outcomes has proved so challenging that the authors of the Misinformation Review piece suggested it “sets up an impossible task for researchers.”  “Lots of people would tell you that it can be done if we had access to the right data or resources,” said one of the authors, Irene Pasquettto, assistant professor at the College of Information, University of Maryland. “I personally believe that this is something that cannot be quantified, not ‘scientifically.’” Those consulted for this article predicted the field would adapt to encompass emerging findings, possibly with an increasing focus on disinfo campaigns conducted in the global south. At least one faction of researchers has already returned to “foundational frameworks” that predated 2016 in the face of growing criticism.  ‘THE FRAME OF DISINFORMATION HAS FAILED US’ At the societal level, the overwhelming focus on whether information is true as the baseline for political analysis is beginning to feel increasingly blinkered. “I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately … about how the frame of disinformation has failed us and what we can do differently,” Marwick said. “The problem is less about ‘units of facts,’ right? The problem is with these big, sticky stories, and a lot of these stories are hundreds of years old.” Marwick cites immigrant criminality — such as the immigrants-eating-pets falsehood — and the smear that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris supposedly “slept her way to the top” as examples of narratives that have persisted for millennia.  “A lot of this stuff sticks, not because the information itself is true or false, but because it ties into people’s common-sense understanding of how the world works.”  So how do you fight narratives? Apparently not with debunking, fact-checking or catastrophic warnings.  The Center for Working-Class Politics studied Harris’ campaign to assess the resonance of different messaging with voters in swing states. “Trump is a threat to democracy” was found to be by far the least appealing message among voters.  Alice Marwick cites immigrant criminality — such as the immigrants-eating-pets falsehood. | Scott Olson/Getty Images “When you adopt this info-centric understanding of voters or news audiences, it really limits what questions you ask about why the right wing is effective,” Peck said.  The post-2016 analysis was “colorless and impersonal” and focused on “tech wizards and Russian bots,” he noted.  Peck studies alternative media, including podcasts, and says persuasion is more likely to come down to “ the host and their charisma and their power and their audience — very human things.”  The idea that U.S. podcaster Joe Rogan “is giving people bad science, and if we gave people good science, we could defeat him … that’s kind of misplacing where Joe Rogan gains his cultural authority — where the trust is between him and his audience.” “This idea that you give people the best talking points, and you’re the master of the facts,” Peck said. “We need to think beyond that.”

BRUSSELS — The biggest dietary problem facing Europeans is not excess meat, sugar, or salt, says Serge Hercberg, professor of nutrition at the Sorbonne and creator of the Nutri-Score food-labeling system. Nor is it alcohol, artificial sweeteners, or even a lack of fruit, vegetables and whole grains. The most confounding obstacle, Hercberg told POLITICO in an interview, is deception by self-serving agri-food lobbies. “It’s very difficult to identify one ingredient or behavior. Moreover, we know what measures work,” he reflected, citing VAT changes, advertising restrictions, healthier public procurement policies, and of course his own labeling system. “The big challenge is being capable of thwarting lobbies who oppose those measures.” It’s a sobering message from the man behind the “five fruit and veg per day” slogan, who has watched as right-wing politicians and corporate interests successfully buried the five-color logo, which was adopted in France in 2017 and was seen as the likeliest candidate for an EU-wide front-of-pack labeling scheme during the last European Commission. Since 2022, however, Nutri-Score has been in full retreat, caught up in the same anti-Green Deal backlash that stymied laws to reduce pesticide use, promote animal welfare and curb deforestation. Italy has led that counterattack, driving culture-war narratives about an “anti-Italian system” that unfairly marks down its meats, cheeses and olive oil. Greece, Hungary, Romania and others have joined in, bolstered by support from EU agricultural association Copa-Cogeca and its national members such as France’s FNSEA, Italy’s Coldiretti and Confagricoltura, and Spain’s Asaja.  Since 2022, Nutri-Score has been in full retreat, caught up in the same anti-Green Deal backlash that stymied laws to reduce pesticide use, promote animal welfare and curb deforestation. | Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images “It’s caricatural,” said Hercberg, noting that olive oil is well-graded with a B and that meats and cheeses get lower scores because they should be eaten in moderation. “I remind them that today it’s in the countries of the south — Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal — that the prevalence of overweight and childhood obesity is the highest.” Nevertheless, Italy has backed the alternative NutrInform, whose algorithm displays five batteries (calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt) and the percent of a person’s daily needs that the product meets. The French scientist is skeptical: “If tomorrow there was a logo shown to be more effective, I’d abandon Nutri-Score immediately,” he vowed. For now, he isn’t letting go and complains of stagnation in the takeup of Nutri-Score. Portugal’s new center-right government dropped the system this summer, leaving only six EU countries whose health ministry still recommends it: France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.  Hercberg blames what many are calling “gastro populism,” which he described as an “attempt to flatter the identitarian fiber, to make people believe we’re threatening their core values.” He cited the campaign rhetoric of far-right parties ahead of the EU election in June, where they gained their strongest-ever representation in the European Parliament. But Nutri-Score’s outlook has only worsened since then, with the new commissioners for agriculture and health — Christophe Hansen and Olivér Várhelyi — appearing to have shelved the idea of proposing an EU law on food labeling. That’s despite a recent report by the European Court of Auditors urging the EU executive to do just that.  “It’s really absurd,” Hercberg concluded, highlighting how the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimated last month that bad diets inflict nearly €1 trillion in hidden health costs on the continent. “The big problem in Europe is this incapacity to not give way to lobbies and put public health first.”