BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

Europe must act quickly to face extreme heat as temperatures surpass 40 degrees and thousands of excess deaths are predicted in the coming days. Southern Europe is in the midst of a soaring heatwave with temperatures reaching up to 46 degrees Celsius in Spain’s Huelva region — a new national record for June. Meanwhile, Italy, Greece, Portugal and the Western Balkans are also facing scorching highs, along with wildfires and civilian victims. A World Health Organization expert issued a stark warning on Monday, calling for more action to stop tens of thousands of “unnecessary and largely preventable deaths.” “It’s no longer a question of if we will have a heatwave, but how many are we going to experience this year and how long will they last,” said Marisol Yglesias Gonzalez, technical officer for climate change and health at the WHO in Bonn. As for how many people could be at risk, Pierre Masselot, a statistician at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told POLITICO this heatwave could cause more than 4,500 excess deaths between June 30 and July 3. The countries likely to experience the highest excess death rates are Italy, Croatia, Slovenia and Luxembourg, he said. “The worst days will likely be [Tuesday] and Wednesday.” Heat claims more than 175,000 lives across the WHO’s Europe region — spanning from Iceland to Russia — each year. A major study co-authored by Masselot and published in January, which covered 854 European cities, warned that deaths from heat would rise sharply if significant climate adaptation is not prioritized. The WHO on Monday echoed that climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, means heatwaves will become more frequent, dangerous and intense, leading to more serious illness and death. Almost two-thirds of Spanish towns have been slapped with health risk warnings, including 804 at the highest alert level, according to data from the Aemet national weather agency. A spokesperson stated that intense heat is expected across the country until July 3. Meanwhile, heat alerts are also in place in France, Italy, Portugal and Greece. Southern Europe is in the midst of a soaring heatwave with temperatures reaching up to 46 degrees Celsius in Spain’s Huelva region — a new national record for June. | Toni Albir/EPA The Greek government has also issued warnings about air pollution from wildfires that have ripped through coastal towns near Athens. Meanwhile, more than 50,000 people have been evacuated in Turkey, primarily due to a fire near Izmir. In Albania, 26 wildfires were reported between Sunday and Monday, while in Serbia, meteorologists reported that last Thursday was the hottest day since records began in the 19th century. The WHO has advised staying hydrated, avoiding the midday heat and keeping homes cool, particularly for vulnerable groups, including older adults, children, outdoor workers, pregnant women and individuals with chronic health conditions. Those on medications like antidepressants or blood pressure drugs should also take care, Yglesias Gonzalez said, as these can affect the ability to regulate body temperature. However, it’s not just about managing heatwaves when they strike, but also about being more prepared, the WHO said. In a 2022 survey, only 21 of the 57 countries in the WHO Europe region reported having a national heat-health action plan. Of those, 14 were in the EU. Of the WHO’s core recommendations, the most commonly implemented are timely alert systems and communication campaigns. But countries are lagging in preparing their health systems and preventing heat exposure through better urban planning, Yglesias Gonzalez said. The WHO will issue new updated guidance for governments next year, including advice on “people-centered cooling” strategies at the urban and regional level to protect people from heat, she added.

Aviation is one of Europe’s greatest industrial achievements — a sector that connects people, powers economies and drives technological leadership. It supports 15 million jobs and contributes €1.1 trillion annually to the EU economy. Europe leads the world in civil aircraft production and air traffic management (ATM) technologies, accounting for 58 percent of the global market share in new civil aircraft and 47 percent of the order book as of 2024. Additionally, 70 percent of global airspace is managed by European ATM technologies.   Europe can be proud of this thriving industry — the result of decades of collaboration and sustained investment by both public and private partners. This technological leadership is a testament to Europe’s commitment to innovation and excellence. But imagine a world where Europe no longer leads in aviation: what would that mean for the flights we take, the jobs in our communities, and the technologies that make travel safer and cleaner? With the global race for technological leadership heating up, and other world regions investing heavily in future aviation, Europe risks falling behind. Europe’s aviation sector is under pressure. If we want aviation to remain a strong pillar of Europe’s competitiveness and sovereignty, we must act now — with long-term, coordinated investment in research and innovation (R&I).  > But imagine a world where Europe no longer leads in aviation: what would that > mean for the flights we take, the jobs in our communities, and the > technologies that make travel safer and cleaner? This is the central argument of the Aviation Research and Innovation Strategy (ARIS): a new strategy that will be unveiled at today’s Paris Air Show and handed over to the European Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, Apostolos Tzitzikostas. ARIS is a wake-up call, as it urges the EU to make aviation R&I a strategic priority in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.   A total funding of €66 billion is needed between 2028 and 2034 — with one-third (€22.5 billion) requested from the EU in dedicated funding and the remainder from member states and the private sector. To put that into perspective, €22.5 billion over seven years represents just 0.13 percent of the EU’s annual GDP. This is a modest price for a return on investment that is immense — in skilled jobs and technological leadership, but also critically in meeting Europe’s climate goals, securing global competitiveness, and reinforcing sovereignty and economic resilience in a rapidly changing world.  > What makes ARIS unique is that it is not a top-down plan. It was drawn up by > close to 100 of Europe’s top aviation leaders. What makes ARIS unique is that it is not a top-down plan. It was drawn up by close to 100 of Europe’s top aviation leaders — a cross-section of manufacturers, airlines, air navigation service providers, airports, drone operators, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups, academia, and research organizations — facilitated by our two partnerships, the SESAR and Clean Aviation Joint Undertakings.   ARIS infographicDownload From hydrogen aircraft to digital air traffic systems, Europe has the solutions but not always the means to bring them to market. If we don’t bridge that gap, someone else will. Global competitors are already investing boldly in civil and defense innovation, accelerating market uptake, and pushing ahead with their own aviation ambitions. If Europe delays, others will shape the future of aviation without us.  To seize this moment, we would like to make the following recommendations to the European Commission: First, dedicate long-term EU funding to aviation R&I. This funding must span the full innovation pipeline — from upstream research at early technology readiness levels to technology maturation and demonstration on ground or in flight for technologies targeting new aircraft programs and ATM solutions.    Second, target EU funding to support not only research but also the industrialization and deployment of aviation technologies in operational service — both for aircraft and ATM technologies. Bridging the gap between research and market uptake demands targeted support beyond Technology Readiness Level 6 to enable scaling, synchronized deployment and the launch of new solutions in operations. This includes the development of aircraft programs, and the implementation of the ten strategic deployment objectives outlined in the European ATM Master Plan. Without such investment, the benefits of upstream R&I cannot be realized. This effort must be coordinated at the EU level, in partnership with member states and industry, to unlock technological and industrial leadership and meet Europe’s climate and competitiveness goals.  Third, foster collaboration across borders, sectors and technology readiness levels by closely aligning all European actors, academia, research organizations, SMEs, start-ups and industry with deployment and regulatory bodies. Early coordination with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency is key, as is collaboration with the defense sector for dual-use technology potential and with international partners to expand impact and market reach. Additionally, synchronized deployment of ATM innovations in line with the European ATM Master Plan needs to be ensured. By coordinating investment and policy, Europe can lead the world in aviation safety, efficiency and sustainability — and secure its technological sovereignty for decades to come.  Europe already has successful models for collaboration: the SESAR and Clean Aviation Joint Undertakings have shown what is possible when public and private actors join forces. What’s needed now is scale, speed, and long-term commitment.  > Europe already has successful models for collaboration: the SESAR and Clean > Aviation Joint Undertakings have shown what is possible when public and > private actors join forces. The decisions being taken now, especially those regarding the EU’s next R&I framework, will determine whether Europe remains a leader in sustainable aviation or becomes dependent on others. The choice is ours.  Let’s not look back in a decade and realized we missed the moment. Let’s make the investments now that will secure Europe’s leadership for decades to come.   We know what it takes — we now just need the political will to do it.  More about the ARIS 

Over three-quarters of Europeans live in cities, but their quality of life varies wildly — especially when it comes to factors that have a big impact on health. A group of international researchers developed a new Healthy Urban Design Index (HUDI) to track and assess well-being in 917 European cities, using indicators ranging from access to sustainable public transport and green spaces to air pollution exposure and heat islands.  The tracking tool was developed by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health using data gathered for a study to be published in this month’s Lancet Planetary Health journal. According to its findings there is a clear continental divide in conditions that favor healthy urban living. Analyses reviewed by POLITICO’s Living Cities showed that municipalities in Western Europe — especially in the U.K., Spain and Sweden — received significantly higher scores than comparable cities in Eastern European countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Natalie Mueller, one of the study’s authors and a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and Pompeu Fabra University, said access to public funds plays a major role in this divide. “If there are financial constraints in cities, investing in sustainable and health-promoting urban forms and infrastructures, and defining environmental policies may be probably less of a priority than tackling other more pressing social and economic issues,” she said. Mueller also noted lingering cultural differences in environmental consciousness and the link between urban design and health. “Eastern European cities still have a strong car culture, where cars are still status symbols,” she said, adding that in some areas, active mobility options like cycling are frowned upon. “They still strongly cater to car traffic with necessary infrastructure, which leads to poor environmental quality and worse health outcomes.” By comparison, lower levels of air pollution, greater access to green spaces, and the reduced presence of urban heat islands enabled Europe’s smaller cities, with 50,000 to 200,000 inhabitants, to earn the highest HUDI scores. Topping the list is Pamplona — a regional capital in Spain that lies in a lush valley at the foot of the Pyrenees and that has used the considerable revenues from its annual “Running of the Bulls” festival to invest in active mobility infrastructure.  MADRID MAKES GOOD Earning the highest score among Europe’s urban areas with more than 1.5 million inhabitants was Madrid, another Spanish city. Like other big cities it ranked well on sustainable transport and housing density. However, Madrid’s placement was remarkable given that the Spanish capital routinely violated the EU’s air quality rules until 2023. Urbanism Councilor Borja Carabante told POLITICO this was precisely why the city had adopted aggressive measures to improve its expansive public transport system. “We’re the first EU capital to have a completely clean urban bus system,” he said, highlighting the number of electric or zero-emissions mass transport vehicles in the network. “We also have Europe’s largest low-emissions zone.” Carabante explained that the public transport initiatives accompanied subsidies for residents seeking to replace their cars or boilers with more sustainable models, or wanting to install e-charging stations in their buildings. Madrid is also taking on major infrastructure projects while building on the success of the Madrid Río regeneration project, which buried a major swathe of the capital’s ring road to recover the Manzanares River. | Jesus Hellin/Europa Press via Getty Images Madrid is also taking on major infrastructure projects while building on the success of the Madrid Río regeneration project, which buried a major swathe of the capital’s ring road to recover the Manzanares River. Work is currently underway on a scheme to redirect a major highway underground and to reconnect five neighborhoods that have been divided since 1968. The redeveloped 3-kilometer area will be a green axis with trees, playgrounds and space for pedestrians and cyclists.  Carabante said the project is emblematic of the city’s commitment to becoming a more desirable — and healthier — place to live. “While cities like Berlin, Rome, Paris and London continue to surpass the nitrogen-dioxide levels considered safe for humans, Madrid has drastically reduced it, complying with European standards, and has become a healthier, more pleasant and more sustainable city than ever before.” Citing examples from the study, Mueller emphasized there are plenty of low-cost measures that local authorities can implement to improve well-being within their municipalities. “You can open up streets and blocks to give people space to walk and cycle, as they’ve done in Barcelona’s superblocks, in London’s low-traffic neighborhoods or Berlin’s Kiezblocks,” she said. The researcher also recommended replacing parking spots with trees and other greenery to protect locals from deadly heat, or to prioritize public transport investments to boost connectivity and slash fares. Using the example of Amsterdam — which went from being a car-choked, smoggy port city in the 1970s to a global model for urban well-being — Mueller stressed that consistent long-term action is the key to making Europe’s cities healthier. Of course, the kind of measures that improve well-being in urban landscapes can be a challenge for municipal leaders, who are up for reelection every four years and are under pressure to prefer projects with immediate results. But Mueller urged them to think big.  “Building healthier urban infrastructure needs long-term, sustained investments,” she said. “Sometimes over many decades.”

‘PARKINSON’S IS A MAN-MADE DISEASE’ Europe’s flawed oversight of pesticides may be fueling a silent epidemic, warns Dutch neurologist Bas Bloem. His fight for reform pits him against industry, regulators — and time. Text and photos by BARTOSZ BRZEZIŃSKI in Nijmegen, Netherlands Illustration by Laura Scott for POLITICO In the summer of 1982, seven heroin users were admitted to a California hospital paralyzed and mute. They were in their 20s, otherwise healthy — until a synthetic drug they had manufactured in makeshift labs left them frozen inside their own bodies. Doctors quickly discovered the cause: MPTP, a neurotoxic contaminant that had destroyed a small but critical part of the brain, the substantia nigra, which controls movement. The patients had developed symptoms of late-stage Parkinson’s, almost overnight. The cases shocked neurologists. Until then, Parkinson’s was thought to be a disease of aging, its origins slow and mysterious. But here was proof that a single chemical could reproduce the same devastating outcome. And more disturbing still: MPTP turned out to be chemically similar to paraquat, a widely used weedkiller that, for decades, had been sprayed on farms across the United States and Europe. Advertisement While medication helped some regain movement, the damage was permanent — the seven patients never fully recovered. For a young Dutch doctor named Bas Bloem, the story would become formative. In 1989, shortly after finishing medical school, Bloem traveled to the United States to work with William Langston, the neurologist who had uncovered the MPTP-Parkinson’s link. What he saw there reshaped his understanding of the disease — and its causes. “It was like a lightning bolt,” Bloem tells me. “A single chemical had replicated the entire disease. Parkinson’s wasn’t just bad luck. It could be caused.” THE MAKING OF A MAN-MADE DISEASE Today, at 58, Bloem leads a globally recognized clinic and research team from his base at the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, a medieval Dutch city near the German border. It treats hundreds of patients each year, while the team pioneers studies on early diagnosis and prevention. The hallway outside Bloem’s office was not hectic on my recent visit, but populated — patients moving slowly, deliberately, some with walkers, others with a caregiver’s arm under their own. One is hunched forward in a rigid, deliberate shuffle; another pauses silently by the stairs, his face slack, not absent — just suspended, as if every gesture had become too costly. On its busiest days, the clinic sees over 60 patients. “And more are coming,” Bloem says. Bloem’s presence is both charismatic and kinetic: tall — just over 2 meters, he says with a grin — with a habit of walking while talking, and a white coat lined with color-coded pens. His long, silver-gray hair is swept back, a few strands escaping as he paces the room. Patients paint portraits of him, write poems about him. His team calls him “the physician who never stops moving.” Unlike many researchers of his stature, Bloem doesn’t stay behind the scenes. He speaks at international conferences, consults with policymakers, and states his case to the public as well as to the scientific world. His work spans both care and cause — from promoting movement and personalized treatment to sounding the alarm about what might be triggering the disease in the first place. Alongside his focus on exercise and prevention, he’s become one of the most outspoken voices on the environmental drivers of Parkinson’s — and what he sees as a growing failure to confront their long-term impact on the human brain. Advertisement “Parkinson’s is a man-made disease,” he says. “And the tragedy is that we’re not even trying to prevent it.” When the English surgeon James Parkinson first described the “shaking palsy” in 1817, it was considered a medical curiosity — a rare affliction of aging men. Two centuries later, Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled globally over the past 20 years, and is expected to double again in the next 20. It is now one of the fastest-growing neurological disorders in the world, outpacing stroke and multiple sclerosis. The disease causes the progressive death of dopamine-producing neurons and gradually robs people of movement, speech and, eventually, cognition. There is no cure. Age and genetic predisposition play a role. But Bloem and the wider neurological community contend that those two factors alone cannot explain the steep rise in cases. In a 2024 paper co-authored with U.S. neurologist Ray Dorsey, Bloem wrote that Parkinson’s is “predominantly an environmental disease” — a condition shaped less by genetics and more by prolonged exposure to toxicants like air pollution, industrial solvents and, above all, pesticides. Most of the patients who pass through Bloem’s clinic aren’t farmers themselves, but many live in rural areas where pesticide use is widespread. Over time, he began to notice a pattern: Parkinson’s seemed to crop up more often in regions dominated by intensive agriculture. “Parkinson’s was a very rare disease until the early 20th century,” Bloem says. “Then with the agricultural revolution, chemical revolution, and the explosion of pesticide use, rates started to climb.” Europe, to its credit, has acted on some of the science. Paraquat — the herbicide chemically similar to MPTP — was finally banned in 2007, although only after Sweden took the European Commission to court for ignoring the evidence of its neurotoxicity. Other pesticides with known links to Parkinson’s, such as rotenone and maneb, are no longer approved. Advertisement But that’s not the case elsewhere. Paraquat is still manufactured in the United Kingdom and China, sprayed across farms in the United States, New Zealand and Australia, and exported to parts of Africa and Latin America — regions where Parkinson’s rates are now rising sharply. Once the second-most widely sold herbicide in the world — after glyphosate — paraquat helped drive major profits for its maker, Swiss-based and Chinese-owned company Syngenta. But its commercial peak has long passed, and the chemical now accounts for only a small fraction of the company’s overall business. In the U.S., Syngenta faces thousands of lawsuits from people who say the chemical gave them Parkinson’s. Similar cases are moving ahead in Canada. Syngenta has consistently denied any link between paraquat and Parkinson’s, pointing to regulatory reviews in the U.S., Australia and Japan that found no evidence of causality.  The company told POLITICO that comparisons to MPTP have been repeatedly challenged, citing a 2024 Australian review which concluded that paraquat does not act through the same neurotoxic mechanism. There is strong evidence, the company said in a written response running to more than three pages, that paraquat does not cause neurotoxic effects via the routes most relevant to human exposure — ingestion, skin contact or inhalation. “Paraquat is safe when used as directed,” Syngenta said. Still, for Bloem, even Europe’s bans are no cause for comfort. “The chemicals we banned? Those were the obvious ones,” Bloem says. “What we’re using now might be just as dangerous. We simply haven’t been asking the right questions.” A CHEMICAL EUROPE CAN’T QUIT Among the chemicals still in use, none has drawn more scrutiny — or survived more court battles — than glyphosate. It’s the most widely used herbicide on the planet. You can find traces of it in farmland, forests, rivers, raindrops and even in tree canopies deep inside Europe’s nature reserves. It’s in household dust, animal feed, supermarket produce. In one U.S. study, it showed up in 80 percent of urine samples taken from the general public. For years, glyphosate, sold under the Roundup brand, has been at the center of an international legal and regulatory storm. In the United States, Bayer — which acquired Monsanto, Roundup’s original maker — has paid out more than $10 billion to settle lawsuits linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Advertisement Glyphosate is now off-patent and manufactured by numerous companies worldwide. But Bayer remains its top seller — achieving an estimated €2.6 billion in glyphosate-related sales in 2024, even as market competition and legal pressures cut into profits. In Europe, lobbyists for the agricultural and chemical sectors have fought hard to preserve its use, warning that banning glyphosate would devastate farming productivity. National authorities remain split. France has tried to phase it out. Germany has promised a full ban — but never delivered. In 2023 — despite mounting concerns, gaps in safety data and political pressure — the European Union reauthorized it for another 10 years. While most of the debate around glyphosate has centered on cancer, some studies have found possible links to reproductive harm, developmental disorders, endocrine disruption and even childhood cancers. Glyphosate has never been definitively linked to Parkinson’s. Bayer told POLITICO in a written response that no regulatory review has ever concluded any of its products are associated with the disease, and pointed to the U.S.-based Agricultural Health Study, which followed nearly 40,000 pesticide applicators and found no statistically significant association between glyphosate and the disease. Bayer said glyphosate is one of the most extensively studied herbicides in the world, with no regulator identifying it as neurotoxic or carcinogenic. But Bloem argues that the absence of a proven link says more about how we regulate risk than how safe the chemical actually is. Unlike paraquat, which causes immediate oxidative stress and has been associated with Parkinson’s in both lab and epidemiological studies, glyphosate’s potential harms are more indirect — operating through inflammation, microbiome disruption or mitochondrial dysfunction, all mechanisms known to contribute to the death of dopamine-producing neurons. But this makes them harder to detect in traditional toxicology tests, and easier to dismiss. “The problem isn’t that we know nothing,” Bloem says. “It’s that we’re not measuring the kind of damage Parkinson’s causes.” Responding, Bayer pointed to paraquat as one of only two agricultural chemicals that studies have linked directly to the development of Parkinson’s disease — even as Syngenta, its manufacturer, maintains there is no proven connection. Advertisement The EU’s current pesticide evaluation framework, like that of many other regulatory systems, focuses primarily on acute toxicity — short-term signs of poisoning like seizures, sudden organ damage or death. Manufacturers submit safety data, much of it based on animal studies looking for visible behavioral changes. But unlike for the heroin users in California, who were exposed to an unusually potent toxin, Parkinson’s doesn’t announce itself with dramatic symptoms in the short term. It creeps in as neurons die off, often over decades. “We wait for a mouse to walk funny,” Bloem says. “But in Parkinson’s, the damage is already done by the time symptoms appear.” The regulatory tests also isolate individual chemicals, rarely examining how they interact in the real world. But a 2020 study in Japan showed how dangerous that assumption may be. When rodents were exposed to glyphosate and MPTP — the very compound that mimicked Parkinson’s in the California heroin cases — the combination caused dramatically more brain cell loss than either substance alone. “That’s the nightmare scenario,” Bloem says. “And we’re not testing for it.” Even when data does exist, it doesn’t always reach regulators. Internal company documents released in court suggest Syngenta knew for decades that paraquat could harm the brain — a charge the company denies, insisting there is no proven link. More recently, Bayer and Syngenta have faced criticism for failing to share brain toxicity studies with EU authorities in the past — data they had disclosed to U.S. regulators. In one case, Syngenta failed to disclose studies on the pesticide abamectin. The Commission and the EU’s food and chemical agencies have called this a clear breach. Bloem sees a deeper issue. “Why should we assume these companies are the best stewards of public health?” he asked. “They’re making billions off these chemicals.”  Syngenta said that none of the withheld studies related to Parkinson’s disease and that it has since submitted all required studies under EU transparency rules. The company added that it is “fully aligned with the new requirements for disclosure of safety data.” Some governments are already responding to the links between Parkinson’s and farming. France, Italy and Germany now officially recognize Parkinson’s as a possible occupational disease linked to pesticide exposure — a step that entitles some affected farmworkers to compensation. But even that recognition, Bloem argues, hasn’t forced the broader system to catch up. WHERE SCIENCE STOPS, POLITICS BEGINS Bloem’s mistrust leads straight to the institutions meant to protect public health — and to people like Bernhard Url, the man who has spent the past decade running one of the most important among them.  Url is the outgoing executive director of the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA — the EU’s scientific watchdog on food and chemical risks, based in Parma, Italy. The agency has come under scrutiny in the past over its reliance on company-submitted studies. Url doesn’t deny that structure, but says the process is now more transparent and scientifically rigorous. I met Url while he was on a visit to Brussels, during his final months as EFSA’s executive director. Austrian by nationality and a veterinarian by training, he speaks precisely, choosing his words with care. If Bloem is kinetic and outwardly urgent, Url is more reserved — a scientist still operating within the machinery Bloem wants to reform. Advertisement Still, Url didn’t dispute the core of the critique. “There are areas we don’t yet take into consideration,” he told me, pointing to emerging science around microbiome disruption, chemical synergy and chronic low-dose exposure. He didn’t name Parkinson’s, but the implications were clear. “We’re playing catch-up,” he admitted. Part of the problem, he suggested, is structural. The agency relies on a system built around predefined methods and industry-supplied data. “We assess risk based on what we’re given, and what the framework allows us to assess,” Url said. “But science evolves faster than legislation. That’s always the tension.” EFSA also works under constraints that its pharmaceutical counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, does not. “EMA distributes money to national agencies,” Url said. “We don’t. There’s less integration, less shared work. We rely on member states volunteering experts. We’re not in the same league.” A pesticide-free farm in in Gavorrano, Italy. | Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images Url didn’t sound defensive. If anything, he sounded like someone who’s been pushing against institutional gravity for a long time. He described EFSA as an agency charged with assessing a food system worth trillions — but working with limited scientific resources, and within a regulatory model that was never designed to capture the risks of chronic diseases like Parkinson’s. “We don’t get the support we need to coordinate across Europe,” he said. “Compared to the economic importance of the whole agri-food industry … it’s breadcrumbs.” But he drew a sharp line when it came to responsibility. “The question of what’s safe enough — that’s not ours to answer,” he said. “That’s a political decision.” EFSA can flag a risk. It’s up to governments to decide whether that risk is acceptable. Advertisement It was a careful way of saying what Bloem had said more bluntly: Science may illuminate the path, but policy chooses where — and whether — to walk it. And in a food system shaped by powerful interests, that choice is rarely made in a vacuum. “There are gaps,” Url said, “and we’ve said that.” But gaps in science don’t always lead to action. Especially when the cost of precaution is seen as an economic threat. THE DOCTOR WHO WON’T SLOW DOWN Evidence from the field is becoming harder to ignore. In France, a nationwide study found that Parkinson’s rates were significantly higher in vineyard regions that rely heavily on fungicides. Another study found that areas with higher agricultural pesticide use — often measured by regional spending — tend to have higher rates of Parkinson’s, suggesting a dose-response relationship. In Canada and the U.S., maps of Parkinson’s clusters track closely with areas of intensive agriculture. The Netherlands has yet to produce comparable data. But Bloem believes it’s only a matter of time. “If we mapped Parkinson’s here, we’d find the same patterns,” he says. “We just haven’t looked yet.” In fact, early signs are already emerging. The Netherlands, known for having one of the highest pesticide use rates in Europe, has seen a 30 percent rise in Parkinson’s cases over the past decade — a slower increase than in some other regions of the world, but still notable, Bloem says. In farming regions like the Betuwe, on the lower reaches of the Rhine River, physiotherapists have reported striking local clusters. One village near Arnhem counted over a dozen cases. “I don’t know of a single farmer who’s doing things purposely wrong,” Bloem says. “They’re just following the rules. The problem is, the rules are wrong.” To Bloem, reversing the epidemic means shifting the regulatory mindset from reaction to prevention. That means requiring long-term neurotoxicity studies, testing chemical combinations, accounting for real-world exposure, genetic predisposition and the kind of brain damage Parkinson’s causes — and critically, making manufacturers prove safety, rather than scientists having to prove harm. “We don’t ban parachutes after they fail,” Bloem says. “But that’s what we do with chemicals. We wait until people are sick.” Advertisement His team is also studying prevention-focused interventions — including exercise, diet and stress reduction — in people already diagnosed with Parkinson’s, in one of the most comprehensive trials of its kind. Still, Bloem is realistic about the limits of individual action. “You can’t exercise your way out of pesticide exposure,” he says. “We need upstream change.” Bloem has seen it before — the same pattern playing out in slow motion. “Asbestos,” he says “Lead in gasoline. Tobacco. Every time, we acted decades after the damage was done.” The science existed. The evidence had accumulated. But the decision to intervene always lagged. “It’s not that we don’t know enough,” he adds. “It’s that the system is not built to listen when the answers are inconvenient.” The clinic has grown quiet. Most of the staff have left for the day, the corridors are still. Bloem gathers his things, but he’s not finished yet. One more phone call to make — something he’ll take, as always, while walking. As we stand up to go into the hallway, he pauses. “If we don’t fix this now,” he says, “we’re going to look back in 50 years and ask: ‘What the hell were we thinking?’” He slips on a pair of black headphones, nods goodbye and turns toward the exit. Outside, he’s already striding across the Radboud campus, talking into the cold evening air — still moving, still making calls, still trying to bend a stubborn system toward change. Graphics by Lucia Mackenzie.

Europeans face “lifelong health crises” as the region grapples with a growing mental health crisis among young people, stagnating immunization coverage and high rates of chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease, according to a World Health Organization report published Tuesday. At the same time, health systems are not ready for future health emergencies, strained under the growing threat of climate change and facing an aging population amid ongoing workforce shortages.   The WHO’s European Health Report, published every three years, looks at the state of health across the European region, which includes 53 countries in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. It found that one in six people in the region die before their 70th birthday from non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory diseases.  “The entire region must confront the root causes of chronic disease, from tobacco and alcohol use to poor access to healthy and nutritious food, to air pollution, to a lack of physical activity,” said WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Henri Kluge in a statement. The European region has the world’s highest alcohol intake, averaging 8.8 liters of pure alcohol per adult per year, with the EU recording the highest intake. Tobacco use remains “unacceptably high” at 25.3 percent and obesity, currently affecting a quarter of adults, is rising.   The report also found that infant mortality, though overall low in the region, varies greatly among countries and nearly 76,000 children die before their fifth birthday every year, usually due to preterm birth complications, birth asphyxia, congenital heart anomalies, lower respiratory infections, neonatal sepsis or other infections. On top of this, routine vaccination rates are stagnating, which is leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases. For example, measles cases across 41 WHO Europe member countries saw a 30-fold increase in 2023 compared with the previous year, with 58,000 measles cases. Poor mental health is also a growing trend among children and teenagers. One in five teenagers in the region grapples with a mental health condition, with suicide being the leading cause of death among 15 to 29-year-olds. Cyberbullying has also become a significant concern, affecting 15 percent of adolescents. Unhealthy lifestyles are also a worrying trend, according to the report, with nearly one in three school-aged children overweight and one in eight living with obesity. And about 11 percent of teenagers used some form of tobacco products in 2022, including e-cigarettes. The report shows “health linkages across the entire life cycle,” Kluge said. “A healthy child is more likely to grow into a healthy adolescent, a healthy adult and a healthy older person. This couldn’t be more crucial because for the first time ever, there are more people aged over 65 years than under 15 years in the European Region.” 

Jan. 1 wasn’t only marked by headaches and regrets this year. For EU countries, 2025 also kicked off with a nerve-racking reminder of all the environmental commitments they have to meet under EU law.  On its rocky road to becoming an environmental haven by 2050, the EU has set interim targets to track progress on reducing pollution levels, planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, and restoring nature.   From separate collection of waste to financing biodiversity projects, here are five targets that the bloc’s 27 member countries should be meeting this year (and, for the most part, aren’t).   TEXTILES One of the EU’s main sustainability objectives is to reduce the harmful effects of its waste on the environment. To do that, Brussels expects its members to have effective collection systems in place for a growing list of types of waste. Glass, paper, food … you know the drill.  As of Jan. 1, EU countries must also collect garments and fabrics separately. That means those unusable shoes, old jackets and dirty bedsheets can’t go in mainstream trashcans anymore.  The latest round-up of data from the EU’s environmental watchdog, dated May 2024, shows that only 11 countries had mandatory separate collection systems in place, and another 14 had introduced voluntary initiatives.  In the same spirit of reducing waste in the fashion sector, the EU has also banned the destruction of unsold clothes and shoes. But that decision isn’t without consequence. A recent investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed that Romania has become a dumpsite for discarded clothes in the EU as tons of donated garments end up in the trash. RECYCLING The tighter rules on waste management fit within the EU’s broader strategy to retrieve the valuable materials in goods that get thrown out to repurpose them.  In 2025, EU countries should be recycling or “preparing for reuse” at least 55 percent of municipal waste, according to the EU’s waste law.  But there are product-specific targets too. For example, the 27 countries should be recycling at least 65 percent of their packaging waste — like takeaway containers, paper wrappers and cardboard boxes — and 65 percent of all the electronic goods (think of all those phones, tablets, electric whisks and vacuum cleaners) placed on the EU market in the last three years.  It’s hard to know exactly if the region is on track to meet these targets or not, since the latest data from the EU’s statistical office, submitted by EU governments themselves, is from 2022. Still, POLITICO can make an educated guess — firstly, because in the summer of 2023 the Commission warned that the majority of countries were likely going to miss the targets in its progress report.  Secondly, because the numbers speak for themselves. In 2022, Germany, Austria, Slovenia and the Netherlands were the only countries already meeting the 2025 municipal waste targets, while Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy were just a few basis points away from the target line. Over half of countries were already meeting the packaging targets, however.  Meanwhile, only Latvia, Slovakia and Bulgaria were collecting the required amount of e-waste.   PLASTICS Zooming in on plastics, Brussels has set some rules for its production, use, and recycling.   In 2025, EU countries are supposed to be collecting 77 percent of single-use plastic beverage bottles put on the market. And to make things even greener, all the new bottles produced as of this year and sold in Europe should include at least 25 percent of recycled plastic inside them.  The Commission’s statistics office does not currently report figures for beverage bottles only, but some companies active in the sector are eager to demonstrate their business models are delivering results. For example, Sensoneo — a Slovak waste management company that sells deposit-return equipment where customers pay an extra fee when purchasing a bottle or can which they get back once they return the product — argues that EU countries with this technology in place have collection rates above 80 percent. NATURE When it comes to protecting nature, most of the EU’s targets are set for 2030, giving its members a bit more legroom to adapt. But as a regional bloc, the EU still has some commitments to live up to, especially on the international stage.  Existing laws on land use state that the EU was supposed to maintain its carbon sink levels between 2021 and 2025. What are carbon sinks, you ask? They’re natural assets like forests or wetlands that soak up and hold on to planet-warming CO2.  Despite Europe’s best efforts to regulate land use and protect forests by law, the continent’s carbon sinks are shrinking.     Like most things, restoration and protection costs money. During the 15th U.N. Biodiversity Conference, which took place in Montreal in 2022, countries (including the EU) pledged to spend at least $20 billion annually in development aid for biodiversity in developing nations by 2025. As of 2024, funding commitments for biodiversity were only in the millions. CARS After energy generation and heating, transport is the most polluting sector in Europe, and Brussels wants carmakers to do something about it.  That’s why it told carmakers that by the end of 2025, a car should generate 15 percent less CO2 than it did in 2021. The penalty if carmakers miss this target is set at €95 for each gram of CO2 per kilometer above the threshold, which they’d have to pay for every non-compliant vehicle. Ouch.  According to the green transport NGO Transport&Environment, however, this is one area where things are looking good. Using 2024 sales data from analytics firm Dataforce and GlobalData, and estimates on future electric and hybrid vehicle sales, the NGO suggests most carmakers will be compliant by the end of the year.

It’s been a hell of a ride for Ursula von der Leyen’s first team atop the European Commission from 2019-2024.  Those five years were dominated by one war on Europe’s doorstep and another in the Middle East, an ongoing energy crisis and a response to a global pandemic, as the Commission attempted to deliver on climate promises, advances on artificial intelligence and even a cure for cancer. In a note to staff, von der Leyen praised the outgoing Commission for fulfilling a promise to be “bold and ambitious” in meeting the aspirations of EU citizens and tackling the challenges ahead. They exceeded that promise, she added.  How do those internal compliments match up with what was promised and ultimately delivered?  Here’s POLITICO’s report card on the outgoing Commission. See who flunked and who passed the five-year policy test.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Von der leyen Dombrovskis Vestager Borrell Jourová Kyriakides Šefčovič Hoekstra Wojciechowski Gentiloni McGuinness Dalli Schmit Ivanova Várhelyi Urpilainen Vălean Sinkevičius Simson Breton Schinas Šuica Lenarčič Ferreira Hahn Johansson Reynders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- URSULA VON DER LEYEN, PRESIDENT Verdict: Von der Leyen went from an unknown and an unexpected choice to helm the EU executive, to one of its most powerful leaders in recent history during her first term. She used the pandemic and the fallout of Russia’s war on Ukraine to tighten her grip on Europe’s decision-making process and to elevate her own public image beyond the corridors of Brussels institutions. While also criticized, her centralized decision-making helped Europe react quickly to crises. For her second term, as the war in Ukraine continues with no end in sight, she’ll have to steer the bloc through a second Donald Trump presidency while ensuring a more competitive EU versus the U.S. and China and delivering on the bloc’s climate targets. Grade: B- Back to the top VALDIS DOMBROVSKIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS FOR PEOPLE AND EUROPEAN COMMISSIONER FOR TRADE Verdict: The former Latvian premier could be living proof of the adage that the length of a job’s title is inversely proportional to its influence. Handed a broad remit covering the economy and trade, Dombrovskis lacked the power to make a difference as the EU faced major headwinds. First the pandemic, and then Russia’s war on Ukraine not only ravaged growth but led to a cost-of-living crisis. Meanwhile, an increasingly hostile geopolitical climate put free-trade deals out of reach as protectionism took hold. Still, Dombrovskis kept his composure — and famed poker face — through the ups and downs of his term. That dependable showing has now landed him another impossible task in von der Leyen’s second cabinet: simplifying the EU’s rampant bureaucracy. Grade: C+ Back to the top MARGRETHE VESTAGER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR A EUROPE FIT FOR A DIGITAL AGE Verdict: Vestager started her second term as antitrust chief with a fearsome reputation for fining big tech. Armed with a larger role ruling over tech policy, she pushed through landmark digital rules to rein in tech giants that have forced them to change their businesses. State aid proved more of a challenge during the pandemic, as governments lobbied for and against softer rules to allow more subsidies. One blot on her reign was Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, who called himself the “digital enforcer” and often sniped with her over key projects such as trying to unlock funding for chips. Grade: A- Back to the top JOSEP BORRELL, VICE PRESIDENT AND HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Verdict: The Spanish socialist was dealt a tough hand as the EU’s top diplomatic envoy. Halfway through his term, two wars broke out that would come to dominate his time in office. Borrell’s staunch backing for Ukraine earned broad support among EU capitals, but his statements on Israel made him an adversary of the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), the EU’s most powerful political group. Critics argue that Borrell has little to show for his advocacy on the Middle East, while other areas such as the Western Balkans suffered neglect. Such critiques, combined with Borrell’s propensity for gaffes, make for a mixed report. Grade: C Back to the top VĚRA JOUROVÁ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR VALUES AND TRANSPARENCY Verdict: The Czech politician was at the center of two major battles, one offline and one online. Offline, she fronted the European Commission’s tussle with Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary over the rule of law. Online she led Brussels’ fight against disinformation and foreign interference and in support of media freedom across the bloc. A staunch liberal and a feisty commissioner, Jourová was known to shake the tree in interviews, terming Elon Musk a “promoter of evil” and in June calling out the Italian government of Giorgia Meloni for its handling of media freedom. In Brussels she maintained friendly relations with her peers and kept her complicated relationship with Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders mostly out of the public arena. Grade: B+ Vera Jourova. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images Back to the top STELLA KYRIAKIDES, HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Verdict: At first glance, Kyriakides pushed through more EU health policy than her predecessors, including new legislation to assess medicines, to finance the drugs regulator and to integrate EU health data, as well as starting a mammoth overhaul of pharma rules. She also led quick revisions of rules governing drugs and disease agencies amid the Covid pandemic and led initiatives on mental health and cancer. Health officials and experts praised her work, which included confronting Big Pharma, but lamented that her EU public health legacy wasn’t more substantial, as illustrated by the surge in vaccine hesitancy and the lack of progress on tobacco legislation.  Grade: A- Back to the top MAROŠ ŠEFČOVIČ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL, INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS AND FORESIGHT Verdict: After 15 years on the European Commission, Šefčovič is now as much a part of the Berlaymont as stale breakfast-meeting croissants. This term he applied his experience to a dazzling array of messy briefs. From EU-U.K. relations to the only slightly less fraught interactions among EU institutions, von der Leyen believed Šefčovič’s callused hands were impervious to thorns. She turned to him to replace Frans Timmermans just as the consensus around the Green Deal broke down; on climate issues, meanwhile, he mostly took a back seat to Wopke Hoekstra (see below), but did help von der Leyen by taking on important listening tours with farmers and discontented industry groups. He’ll be back for a fourth term, nabbing the coveted trade portfolio. Grade: B Back to the top WOPKE HOEKSTRA, CLIMATE ACTION Verdict: Green groups were deeply skeptical that the Dutchman taking on the climate brief for the last year of the first von der Leyen Commission would prove a fellow traveler. His CV, after all, listed stints at Shell and McKinsey before he joined the Dutch government. But Hoekstra flipped the script and proved an able, at times even passionate defender of the EU’s climate goals. His penchant for carbon pricing is well known, and helped him not only keep his job but also expand it to include a taxation sidebar. Grade: A- Back to the top JANUSZ WOJCIECHOWSKI, AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Verdict: Poland’s farm chief has been called one of the worst commissioners in EU history. He tried, but ultimately the 70-year-old politician didn’t have the negotiating chops to reform the bloc’s broken agrifood system. As the sole hard-right commissioner, Wojciechowski was isolated early on, a status that was only worsened by his micromanaging boss, Frans Timmermans, who was a backseat driver during the green transition for agriculture. The disgruntled Pole ended up traveling home often, contradicting his colleagues and increasingly pandering to farmer lobbies. He dreams of being remembered in Brussels; he’ll be lucky if he’s forgotten. Grade: D- Back to the top PAOLO GENTILONI, ECONOMY Verdict: The former Italian prime minister’s oversight of the EU economy came during an extraordinary period that included an unprecedented pandemic, the Ukraine war and a subsequent inflation crisis that tore through the bloc. These unique circumstances produced some radical political steps from the bloc’s executive, including the suspension and reform of the European Commission’s fiscal-rule regime and the creation of an €800 billion cash pot to help national economies recover from the multiple crises. While that bold response forestalled a broader economic crisis, it was not uncontroversial. Independent watchdogs said they were unable assess the impact of the new EU funds, while growth remains modest. On other matters, such as taxation, Gentiloni’s term was far less ambitious in its goals and centered more on international deals, given previous failures to convince governments to back more radical domestic amendments. Grade: B+ Back to the top MAIREAD MCGUINNESS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, FINANCIAL STABILITY AND CAPITAL MARKETS UNION Verdict: McGuinness became a commissioner unexpectedly in 2020 after Phil Hogan resigned over the “Golfgate” scandal, as Ireland was downgraded from the powerful trade portfolio to financial services. But the former journalist and MEP made it work: She oversaw the release of new finance legislation, from banking and markets rules to clearing and green finance, focusing on policies that chimed with the public. She was hamstrung by industry lobbying, especially on making investing easier and cheaper for regular people, where a massive pre-emptive lobbying effort killed off the most ambitious parts of her proposals before the Commission had a chance to publish them. Known as energetic and personable, McGuiness connected with people, but often found herself in the crosshairs of more powerful EU figures on control of sanctions oversight and the digital euro.  Grade: B Back to the top HELENA DALLI, EQUALITY  Verdict: A member of the Malta Labour Party, Dalli became Europe’s first equality commissioner in 2019, delivering significant contributions during her mandate. She pushed for major directives such as the European Disability Rights Strategy and a directive to ensure equal pay transparency for men and women. In April, the largest European women’s rights network applauded her landmark directive on combating violence against women, while another equality group highlighted Dalli’s failure to criminalize forced sterilization as a missed opportunity. Her achievements drew little fanfare, however, and Dalli’s obscure public presence and minimal visibility may ultimately have proven her greatest weakness.  Grade: B+ Back to the top NICOLAS SCHMIT, JOBS AND SOCIAL RIGHTS Verdict: To his fans, Schmit was a knowledgeable commissioner whose experience as Luxembourg’s minister for employment coupled with his knowledge of Brussels politics helped him deliver. His achievements included the minimum wage directive, which was aimed at improving wages and collective bargaining across the bloc, and the hard-fought platform workers directive, meant to improve the working rights of users of digital labor platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo. To his detractors, however, he was a von der Leyen yes-man — even when challenging her as Commission president — who didn’t fight hard enough as a member of the College of Commissioners to push for more stringent regulations on social rights.  Grade: B Back to the top ILIANA IVANOVA, INNOVATION, RESEARCH, CULTURE, EDUCATION AND YOUTH Verdict: Admittedly, a year is not a lot of time in which to leave your mark as a European commissioner, especially when you’ve been handed the innovation portfolio. The Bulgarian, who filled in for compatriot Mariya Gabriel as commissioner in September 2023, highlighted the challenges that plague researchers and startups, such as critical technology leaking to China or difficulties in tapping growth funding — and did so in a more media-savvy way than her predecessor. But in arriving so late in the mandate she was unable to differentiate herself by attaching her name to a major rulebook, or by claiming credit for any research, innovation or startup success. She now returns to her previous job — underlining her status as a placeholder.  Grade: D+ Back to the top OLIVÉR VÁRHELYI, NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ENLARGEMENT Verdict: Just like Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán in the European Council, Várhelyi was the black sheep on the Commission. His enlargement portfolio rose to the top of the political agenda after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but he was widely seen as too partial in reviewing the efforts of Ukraine and other countries to join the bloc. The former Hungarian ambassador to the EU also triggered a major controversy when he announced a freeze on aid to the Palestinian territories in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year. He was immediately overruled by EU foreign affairs chief Borrell and, later, by von der Leyen.  Grade: F Olivér Várhelyi. | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images Back to the top JUTTA URPILAINEN, INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS Verdict: The Finn cemented the EU’s new approach to third countries via the flagship Global Gateway initiative, which mobilized up to €300 billion in public and private funds to finance infrastructure projects abroad, thereby offering those nations an alternative to China’s strategic largesse in its Belt and Road Initiative. But there were doubts whether Urpilainen had the political clout to defend Europe’s response to geopolitical competition within and outside the bloc. The supporters of Global Gateway have high hopes that upcoming Czech Commissioner Jozef Síkela will be an upgrade for the department overseeing Global Gateway. Grade: C- Back to the top ADINA VĂLEAN, TRANSPORT Verdict: An MEP since 2007, Vălean is in her element in the European Parliament. As a transport commissioner, however, she seemed out of sync, at times even bored with the legislation she was tasked with defending. Lawmakers and diplomats complained she lacked vision for transport, with one official singling her out as the most absentee commissioner within the EU executive even as her department churned out a long list of legislative texts. The commissioner won praise from some for her Covid certificates, which rebooted travel, and for the “green lanes” allowing trucks to circulate when countries shut their borders in futile attempts to halt the spread of Covid. And when Russia invaded Ukraine and halted its sea trade, the “solidarity lanes” that bolstered Ukrainian land exports were a key part of the EU’s response to the war. Grade: C- Back to the top VIRGINIJUS SINKEVIČIUS, ENVIRONMENT, OCEANS AND FISHERIES Verdict: The youngest-ever commissioner performed well in what turned out to be a relatively difficult portfolio, in which he had to balance economic interests with environmental protection. Lithuania’s former economy minister fought to get the contentious Green Deal legislation through, including new rules to prevent imports of products driving global deforestation; legislation to cut packaging waste or make consumer goods greener; air pollution limits; and attempts to boost the restoration of the natural environment. He was a strong advocate of the Green Deal, but failed to push through the much-awaited revision of the EU’s chemicals framework regulation (REACH) or set sweeping new rules, as promised, to decrease microplastic pollution. Overall, though, whatever you think of the Green Deal, his was a massive political achievement.  Grade: A- Back to the top KADRI SIMSON, ENERGY Verdict: Simson had a tough term with Russia’s war in Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis. But her biggest struggle was to establish herself in a Commission where key parts of her role were hoovered up by von der Leyen, ex-Green Deal chief Timmermans and Šefčovič. Her advocacy of greater support for Ukraine’s beleaguered energy grid in the face of Russian attacks deserves credit, and she was able to chart a course through stacks of complex legislation without any major crises. But quiet competence is rarely enough to stand out in a crowded field.  Grade: C Back to the top THIERRY BRETON, INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES Verdict: In charge of a huge portfolio spanning tech and industrial policy, the French commissioner vowed to use his experience as a tech chief executive to get things done for the EU. That formula worked for a time, with Breton coordinating EU medical supply production early in the Covid pandemic and helping to deliver the AI Act, the world’s first binding regulation on artificial intelligence. But Breton’s aggressive approach to EU politics and his repeated challenges to von der Leyen worked against him in the end, leading to his early exit from the Commission. Grade: C+ Back to the top MARGARITIS SCHINAS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROMOTING OUR EUROPEAN WAY OF LIFE Verdict: The Greek politician’s job was primarily focused on a new package of rules on how the bloc would manage migration. Schinas duly delivered the package, which had been under discussion for nearly a decade. In the final months of his term, however, 15 EU capitals demanded further changes to the bloc’s rules on migration, suggesting that the Migration Pact was not all it was cracked up to be. On other aspects of his job, namely upholding justice and core values, Schinas let other commissioners take the lead.  Grade: B- Back to the top DUBRAVKA ŠUICA, DEMOCRACY AND DEMOGRAPHY Verdict: Šuica had one of the Commission’s more loosely defined portfolios, with a focus on improving EU democracy. A key deliverable was organizing the Conference on the Future of Europe — a series of debates geared at making the EU feel more democratic, which the Croatian politician delivered in 2022. While the bloc is implementing much of the low-hanging fruit from the conference, it has balked at larger changes, such as plans to scrap unanimous decision-making in foreign policy. While her first term at the Commission was low-key, Šuica won von der Leyen’s confidence to earn a second term in the Berlaymont. Grade: B+ Back to the top JANEZ LENARČIČ, HUMANITARIAN AID AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT Verdict: Slovenia was tasked with improving the EU’s response to emergencies such as natural disasters and promoting humanitarian law. Lenarčič was an early pick to serve on von der Leyen’s Covid response team, where he was overshadowed by commissioners with more power — namely Breton and von der Leyen herself. On humanitarian law, Lenarčič established himself as a key critic of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. On crisis management, however, he failed to make much of an impact, not least during the recent deadly floods in Valencia, Spain. Grade: B Back to the top ELISA FERREIRA, COHESION AND REFORMS Verdict: The Portuguese socialist was in charge of EU spending in poorer regions at a time when the program was overshadowed by the bloc’s €800 billion post-pandemic recovery fund, which largely neglected the local impact of investments. Ferreira’s influence was diminished by von der Leyen’s disinterest in regional policy and, more generally, by multiple crises that shifted attention elsewhere. The EU’s cohesion budget was used to fund medical equipment during the Covid crisis and assistance to Ukrainian refugees — undermining its core task of reducing inequalities across regions. While Ferreira passionately defended regional funding against growing criticism, she failed to articulate a vision of how to structure this policy in the future. Grade: C Back to the top JOHANNES HAHN, BUDGET Verdict: The experienced Austrian politician played a role in the EU’s most politically sensitive decisions, including funding to Ukraine, post-Covid financing and withholding EU cash to Hungary over its democratic backsliding. Hahn got the job done in most cases, even though von der Leyen frequently stole the limelight. In his five years, however, he achieved little progress on the introduction of EU-wide taxes to repay the bloc’s Covid debt, largely due to national resistance. In his final months in power he became reticent and arguably gave senior officials in his department too much freedom to float radical ideas that were politically toxic. With the EU’s new budget looming, Hahn’s Polish successor Piotr Serafin is likely to wield comparatively greater power. Grade: C Back to the top YLVA JOHANSSON, HOME AFFAIRS  Verdict: The blunt Swedish politician found a niche in what could be called both a broad and a narrow remit by focusing much of her attention on Europe’s approach to tech. A high-profile commissioner, Johansson called for tech companies to better screen their platforms for terrorism and child pornography, and urged Europol to process content and as a transformed digital agency. She struggled to oversee migration, a portfolio guarded closely by national governments, but stood strong in holding them to account for their policies, including slamming Greece for reportedly forcing migrants onto an emergency raft and abandoning them in the Aegean Sea in 2023. Grade: A- Back to the top DIDIER REYNDERS, JUSTICE Verdict: A Belgian political veteran, Reynders played his Berlaymont role in overseeing the EU’s high-profile legal stand-off with Hungary over the rule of law without — crucially — upstaging his boss. Known in his home country as Mr. Teflon for his ability to shake off political scandals, Reynders’ success as commissioner meant he steered clear of political live wires, as seen in his muted responses to national spyware scandals. One failure: Reynders emerges from the job without having lined up another high-profile gig, having lost — for the second time — his bid to lead the Council of Europe in the summer. Grade: C Back to the top Max Griera, Sejla Ahmatovic, Barbara Moens, Nicholas Vinocur, Alessandro Ford, Douglas Busvine, Kathryn Carlson, Pieter Haeck, Gregorio Sorgi, Izabella Kaminska, Giovanna Faggionato, Helen Collis, Louise Guillot, Laurens Cerulus, and Aoife White contributed reporting. 

President-elect Donald Trump named former New York Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin to be his administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. The selection of Zeldin, a vocal Trump ally in Congress during his first term, was a surprise after Andrew Wheeler, who served as the second EPA chief during Trump’s first term, was widely thought to be the frontrunner for the post. If confirmed, Zeldin will carry out Trump’s energy and environmental agenda, which includes pulling back Biden-era rules on climate and air pollution and potentially rescinding millions of dollars in funding for clean energy under the Inflation Reduction Act. “Lee, with a very strong legal background, has been a true fighter for America First policies,” Trump said in a statement. “He will ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American businesses, while at the same time maintaining the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet. He will set new standards on environmental review and maintenance, that will allow the United States to grow in a healthy and well-structured way.” Zeldin, a former New York congressman from 2015 to 2023, was a member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus and Conservative Climate Caucus — though he received a 14 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters, a left-leaning group that ranks members on their environmental voting records. Upon joining the bipartisan climate caucus in 2016, Zeldin declared one of his top priorities was to “safeguard our environment.” He ran an unsuccessful campaign for governor of New York in 2022, losing to Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul. His campaign website makes no mention of addressing climate change as a priority, but he issued a three-point energy plan calling on the state to allow fracking of natural gas, a practice it had banned in 2014. He also called for approving new pipeline construction and suspending the gas tax. Zeldin has also criticized Hochul for signing a bill that would ban the sale of gasoline powered cars by 2035. After earning a law degree from Albany Law School in 2003, Zeldin served four years in the Army, including in intelligence and the JAG Corps. He then worked several years as an attorney in New York before being elected to the state Senate in 2010.