BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

Policymakers are overlooking a $370 billion market that will determine whether climate goals succeed or fail.  In the grand narrative of the clean energy transition, materials like lithium, rare earths and silicon dominate headlines. Yet the most strategically important materials for this transition may be hiding in plain sight, dismissed by policymakers as environmental villains rather than recognized as the enablers of human progress they truly are. The $370 billion blind spot Polyolefins — the family of materials that includes polyethylene and polypropylene — represent perhaps the greatest strategic oversight in contemporary clean industry policy Here is a reality check. Polyolefins represent a global market approaching $370 billion, growing at over 5 percent annually.1,2 They make up nearly half of all plastics consumed in Europe.3 By 2034, global production is expected to hit 371 million tons.4  Yet in the European Union’s Clean Industrial Deal — a €100 billion strategy for industrial competitiveness — polyolefins receive barely a mention.4 This represents a profound strategic miscalculation. While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already critical materials— they simply happen to be abundant rather than scarce. In the infrastructure-intensive clean energy transition ahead, abundance is not a weakness; it is the ultimate strategic advantage. > While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like > lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already > critical materials. The EU’s REPowerEU plan calls for 1,236 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 — more than double today’s levels.4 Every offshore wind farm, solar array and electric grid connection depends on polyolefins. They insulate cables, protect components and form structural parts of turbines and solar panels. Every solar panel relies on polyolefin elastomers to protect its inner workings for up to 30 years, even in harsh weather.8 And every grid connection depends on polyethylene-insulated cables to carry electricity efficiently across long distances. 7 Multiply these requirements across thousands of installations, and the strategic importance of polyolefins becomes undeniable. Yet, currently, the policy framework treats these materials as afterthoughts, focusing instead on the relatively small quantities of rare elements in generators and inverters while ignoring the massive volumes of polyolefins that make the entire system possible. Beyond energy: the hidden dependencies The strategic importance of polyolefins extends far beyond energy infrastructure. As one example, modern medical systems depend fundamentally on polyolefin materials for syringes, IV bags, tubing and protective equipment. Global food security increasingly depends on polyolefin-based packaging systems that extend shelf life, reduce waste and enable distribution networks — feeding billions of people. Meanwhile, water infrastructure relies on polyethylene pipes engineered for 100-year lifespans. These applications are rarely considered alongside energy priorities — a dangerous fragmentation of strategic thinking. The waste challenge and a circular solution Let’s be clear, plastic waste is a real environmental challenge demanding urgent action. However, the solution is not abandoning these essential materials, it is building the infrastructure to capture their full value in circular systems. The fundamental error in current approaches is treating waste as a material problem rather than a systems problem. Europe currently captures only 23 percent of polyolefin waste for recycling, despite these materials representing nearly two-thirds of all post-consumer plastic waste.3 That’s not because the material can’t be recycled. The infrastructure to do so isn’t at the scale needed to collect, sort and recycle waste to meet future circular feedstock needs. Polyolefins are among the most recyclable materials we have. They can be mechanically recycled multiple times. And with chemical recycling, they can even be broken down to their molecular building blocks and rebuilt into virgin-quality material. That’s not just circularity, it’s circularity at scale. This matters because the EU’s target of 24 percent material circularity by 20305 is unlikely to be met without polyolefins. However, current frameworks treat them as obstacles rather than enablers of circularity. The economic transformation The transition represents an economic transformation, creating competitive advantages for regions implementing it effectively. A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs.6 > A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture > €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs. At the end of the day, the clean energy transition must be affordable. Polyolefins help make that possible. They’re cheaper, lighter and longer lasting than many alternatives. Manufacturers with access to cost-effective recycled feedstocks can reduce input costs by 20-40 percent compared with virgin materials. Polyethylene pipes cost 60-70 percent less than steel alternatives while lasting twice as long.9 These aren’t marginal gains. They’re system-level efficiencies that make the difference between success and failure at scale. The strategic choice The real challenge isn’t technical, it’s institutional. Polyolefins sit at the crossroads of materials, environmental and industrial policy, yet these areas are treated as separate domains. There’s also a geopolitical angle. Unlike lithium or rare earths, polyolefins can be produced from diverse feedstocks — natural gas, biomass and even captured CO2 — enabling domestic production and supply chain resilience. This flexibility is a major asset, but current policies largely overlook it. > The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather > than environmental problems. The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather than environmental problems. This means including them in critical materials assessments — not because they are scarce, but because they are essential. It means coordinating research and development efforts rather than leaving them to fragmented market forces. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the clean energy transition will succeed or fail based on our ability to build infrastructure at unprecedented scale and speed. And that infrastructure will be built primarily from materials that combine performance, abundance, sustainability and cost-effectiveness in ways only polyolefins can provide. The choice facing policymakers is clear: continue treating polyolefins as problems to be managed or recognize them as strategic assets enabling the clean energy future. The regions that understand this integration first will shape the global economy for decades to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Grand View Research. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share, Growth | Industry Report, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/polyolefin-market 2. Fortune Business Insights. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share & Growth | Global Report [2032]. Retrieved from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/polyolefin-market-102373 3. Plastics Europe. (2025). Polyolefins. Retrieved from https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/a-large-family/polyolefins-2/ 4. European Commission. (2025). Clean Industrial Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en 5. European Commission. (2022). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 6. Watkins, E., & Schweitzer, J.P. (2018). Moving towards a circular economy for plastics in the EU by 2030. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Think-2030-A-circular-economy-for-plastics-by-2030-1. 7. Institute of Sustainable Studies (2025). EU Circular Economy Act aims to double circularity rate by 2030 EU Circular Economy Act – Institute of Sustainability Studies 8. López-Escalante, M.C., et al. (2016). Polyolefin as PID-resistant encapsulant material in PV modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 144, 691-699. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024815005206 9. PE100+ Association. (2014). Polyolefin Sewer Pipes – 100 Year Lifetime Expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.pe100plus.com/PPCA/Polyolefin-Sewer-Pipes-100-Year-Lifetime-Expectancy-p1430.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Donald Trump’s envoy for the Middle East said the war in Gaza would come to an end by the end of the year “one way or another.” “We think that we’re going to settle this one way or another, certainly before the end of this year,” Steve Witkoff told Fox News in an interview on Tuesday. It has been nearly 700 days since Israel launched its offensive in Gaza, killing over 60,000 Palestinians, according to figures from the territory’s health authorities that are widely viewed as reliable and backed by the United Nations. The assault followed the Oct. 7 attacks, in which Hamas militants killed around 1,200 people in Israel and took about 250 hostages. Witkoff said Hamas was “100 percent” responsible for holding up a negotiated peace deal. “There’s been a deal on the table for the last six or seven weeks that would have released 10 of the hostages out of the 20 who we think are alive,” he said. “And it was Hamas who slow-played that process and it is Hamas now who are saying we accept that deal, and I think in large part they’re … changing their mind because the Israelis are putting some very intense pressure on them.” Hamas agreed to a proposal from Qatari and Egyptian mediators over a week ago that would return some Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Israel has pledged to review the terms of the deal and respond but has so far not agreed to it, instead pushing ahead with a renewed assault on Gaza City despite mounting international opposition. Meanwhile, a full-blown famine was declared in Gaza last week, with a U.N.-backed food security body warning that millions of Palestinians face starvation. At least 20 people were also killed by Israeli missile strikes at a hospital on Monday, including five journalists, in what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a “tragic mishap.” Witkoff called that attack “a tragedy … But it’s a war. And part of what we’re trying to do is shut that war down.” He added that Trump was convening a “large meeting” at the White House on Wednesday to hash out the details of a “comprehensive plan” to rebuild Gaza, which Israel’s assault has left a “demolition zone.” Another conflict the Trump administration is eager to resolve by the close of 2025 is the war in Ukraine. After whirlwind summits in Alaska and Washington with the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, Witkoff said “the end is in sight” and the U.S. was “hopeful that by the end of this year, and maybe quite a bit sooner, we actually can find the ingredients to get to that peace deal.” Russia had put forward a peace proposal that “involves Donetsk,” the eastern region of Ukraine partially occupied by the Kremlin’s troops, Witkoff said, talking up the offer as major “progress.” Ukraine and its allies have repeatedly said the war can end as soon as Moscow stops its full-scale invasion, which it launched in the winter of 2022. But the Kremlin is refusing to do so unless Kyiv bows to its demands, including giving up vast, heavily fortified swaths of territory in Ukraine’s east.

The executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund on Sunday decried debates over the extent of hunger in Gaza as “kind of obscene.” Speaking to host Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” UNICEF’s Catherine Russell said: “To me, it’s kind of obscene that we are having these conversations arguing about whether the methodology works or not. We know children are dying, right? I am tired of a discussion about, well, are we giving the right information or not?” The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (which is often called IPC) declared last week there is famine in Gaza. “The time for debate and hesitation has passed, starvation is present and is rapidly spreading,” the IPC report stated. Israel, which has had issues with the United Nations for many years, rejected the IPC assessment as false and said it was meant “to smear Israel with lies” as part of an effort to discredit Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. Russell, an American attorney, said to Brennan that the IPC is filled with “technical people,” not “political people,” and that there is a simple way for Israel to demonstrate the truth to the world. “First of all, let the international press in,” Russell said. “Let them make determinations. I mean, we’ve talked about this, Margaret, of you coming. … Everyone should be able to get in there.” Brennan noted that the footage of emaciated children being shown on “Face the Nation” was shot by reporters within Gaza since international reporters are not being permitted entry. Russell added: “I have spoken to our staff, and they are seeing children who are incredibly deprived, many thousands of children who have had amputations, and are, you know, it’s just one terrible thing after another for children.” The war in Gaza started when Hamas launched a lethal incursion into Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200 people in Israel. The fighting since then has claimed tens of thousands of lives, most of them combatants and noncombatants in Gaza. Russell said the warfare has been brutal for all concerned. “It’s been, now, almost two years since October 7th,” Russell said, “and since then, Israeli children have been killed and taken hostage, and now we’re seeing Palestinian children finally facing what we’ve been yelling and screaming about for months and months and months, which is a terrible famine.” She added: “You know, we’ve estimated at this point that about 18,000 children in Gaza have already died. And those are children who die from a whole range of issues. But when you think about that, that’s about 28 children a day. That’s almost a classroom of children every single day who have died since the beginning of this conflict.”

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp resigned late Friday amid political deadlock over what he saw as the need for tougher measures against Israel, weakening the country’s already fragile caretaker administration. Veldkamp’s colleagues from the centrist New Social Contract (NSC) party followed him out of the caretaker government in a blow to the stability of the EU’s fifth-biggest economy. The Netherlands’ next general election is set to take place on Oct. 29. The Dutch government collapsed on June 3 — and then went into caretaker mode — after Geert Wilders’ far-right Party For Freedom (PVV) left over a dispute on migration policy. After hours of fruitless debate in parliament on Friday on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Veldkamp — who had pushed for tougher sanctions against Israel over its renewed assault on Gaza City — said in the evening he had “insufficient confidence” he would have “the space in the coming weeks, months, or even a year to chart the course I deem necessary.” NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven said the party had sent a message that “the situation has to improve.” “It didn’t,” she said simply. “So now steps are being taken.” That sentiment was echoed by Deputy Prime Minister Eddy van Hijum, also from the NSC. “In short, we’re done with it … Veldkamp felt the need for additional measures against the Israeli government very strongly, but the brakes were constantly applied,” he said. Prime Minister Dick Schoof voiced his “regret” about the withdrawal of NSC from the Cabinet in a late-night address to parliament. “We must respect these decisions, but we deeply regret them — especially in light of the responsibility the cabinet bears in this caretaker phase,” he said. The populist Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) party, one of the coalition’s two remaining partners along with the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), fumed over the NSC’s departure, saying it left the Netherlands “rudderless.” “While the talks were still ongoing, they walked away, leaving chaos in their wake,” the BBB party said in a statement. Veldkamp, a former ambassador to Israel, resigned the same day a United Nations-backed food security body declared that there is a famine in Gaza and amid Israel’s renewed military offensive in the besieged coastal strip. The health ministry in Gaza, which is under the Hamas-run government, estimates more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its assault on Gaza immediately following Hamas’ attack on Israel Oct. 7, 2023. U.N. agencies and independent experts consider the ministry’s casualty records as generally reliable.

A United Nations-backed food security body said Friday there is a famine in Gaza, in a landmark announcement amid Israel’s ongoing assault on the Palestinian coastal enclave. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report, which was published Friday, famine in Gaza is “entirely man-made,” but it could be “halted and reversed” if immediate action is taken. From March 2025, Israel has been imposing a total blockade on aid deliveries to Gaza, which has prevented essential food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching the population. “The time for debate and hesitation has passed, starvation is present and is rapidly spreading. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that an immediate, at-scale response is needed,” the report said. “Any further delay — even by days — will result in a totally unacceptable escalation of Famine-related mortality,” it added. The IPC — a global initiative led by U.N. agencies, aid groups and governments — is the primary tool the international community relies on to assess famine. It uses a five-phase scale to analyze and classify levels of acute food insecurity. While the IPC does not formally declare a famine, its assessments provide the analysis that underpins official recognition. The report raised Gaza Governorate to Phase 5, the highest level on the global hunger scale, marked by starvation, destitution and death. It estimates that more than 500,000 people in Gaza are already living under these conditions. A further 1.07 million people, 54 percent of Gaza’s pre-war population, are classified as being in Phase 4, or “emergency” levels of food insecurity, while 396,000 people (20 percent) are enduring Phase 3, or “crisis” conditions. Looking ahead, the report projects that by the end of September, as many as 641,000 Palestinians could be facing Phase 5, or “catastrophe,” conditions. The Israeli government, which has been at loggerheads with the U.N. for years, strongly rejected the assessment. The Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), the military body overseeing Gaza aid, called the IPC’s findings “false” and “biased,” based on “partial and unreliable sources, many of them affiliated with Hamas.” “There is no famine in Gaza,” Israel’s foreign ministry said in a statement, accusing the report of “twisting” its own rules and criteria to “smear Israel with lies.” “This man-made, widespread malnutrition means that even common and usually mild diseases like diarrhoea are becoming fatal, especially for children,” said Director General of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “Gaza must be urgently supplied with food and medicines. Aid blockages must end!” he added. “This confirmation of famine is absolutely horrifying yet not surprising,” Mercy Corps Chief Executive Officer Tjada D’Oyen McKenna said in a statement.” “What we are witnessing in Gaza is a moral failing of the highest order. The world knows how to stop a famine — we just need the will to act,” she added. Hamas-led militants stormed out of the Gaza Strip into nearby Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which coincided with a major Jewish holiday. Their attack killed some 1,200 people, most of them civilians. Some 250 people, including children, were captured by Hamas and other groups and taken into Gaza, triggering a massive retaliation by the Israel Defense Forces. The health ministry in Gaza, which is under the Hamas-run government, said that 61,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the beginning of the war, according to the latest figures in the Associated Press. U.N. agencies and independent experts consider the ministry’s casualty records as generally reliable. Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is grounded in the recognition that people, land, and society are deeply interlinked. But today, that connection is under strain. Farmers face mounting pressure from extreme weather, rising input costs and increasing regulatory complexity. Against this backdrop, the upcoming CAP reform is a pivotal moment, one that must deliver real outcomes to future-proof European agriculture.   To do that, policymakers should focus on three clear priorities: enabling co-investment between the public and private sectors; ensuring payments are simpler and rewarding farmers for what really matters; and equipping farmers with tailored support beyond payments. This is the foundation for a CAP that truly supports food security, climate action, and farmer livelihoods, while keeping food affordable for consumers.   By aligning around these priorities, the CAP can move beyond being just a rulebook for farmers and become a framework that brings together everyone involved in sustaining and shaping our food future, balancing agricultural progress with care for the environment and our communities. At PepsiCo, we see the impact of these policies up close, starting from the very first step of our value chain. Across the EU, we work with over 800 farmers to source key agricultural crops and ingredients, including potatoes, corn and oats. These ingredients are the backbone of iconic brands like Lay’s, Doritos, and Quaker, which rely on thriving farming communities and sustainable agricultural practices. Their success is our success. And so is their sustainability.  But I can also see that today’s farmers face an uncertain future. With the EU standing at a crossroads, we have to rethink how to support food security, respond to climate impacts and deliver more equitable outcomes for farmers, while keeping food affordable and accessible for consumers.   That’s why CAP reform matters now. Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full agri-food value chain.  On PepsiCo’s part, we remain committed to being a constructive partner in support of a more competitive, resilient and sustainable food system — based on regenerative agriculture.  This approach uses science-based farming practices that aim to restore ecosystems by improving soil health and fertility, reducing emissions, enhancing water quality and protecting biodiversity while also supporting farmer livelihoods. For example, in Jaén, southern Spain, we recently launched ‘Viva Oliva’ to support local olive growers, many of whom have been working in this historic trade for generations. Through this project, we’re providing hands-on training from agronomy experts so that farmers can protect the ecosystem more efficiently and conserve vital resources.   Crucially, these practices also create new opportunities, ensuring that farming can continue to be a viable option for the next generation. In 2024 we sourced 100 percent of the olive oil for our Alvalle gazpacho brand from Jaén, securing a high-quality local supply for Alvalle while strengthening the role of farmers in our supply shed.  > We’re investing in innovative techniques that bring life back to the land > because it is the right thing to do for our business, for the farmers we work > with and for the planet. Viva Oliva is just one of the many projects that’s helped us spread regenerative agriculture across a total of 3.5 million acres (approximately 1.4 million hectares) of farmland. Recently, we extended our target and are now aiming to reach 10 million acres (around 4 million hectares) globally by 2030.   We’re also taking action further upstream through partnerships with fertilizer companies like Yara, equipping farmers with precision tools to improve nutrient efficiency, increase yields and lower the carbon footprint of their crops. This collaboration supports approximately 1,000 farms across the EU and the UK that supply key ingredients for Lay’s and Walkers, covering around 128,000 hectares. By 2030 the partnership aims to reduce fertilizer production emissions by up to 80 percent and in-field fertilizer emissions by up to 20 percent, helping scale regenerative practices while supporting farmer productivity.  > Recently, we extended our regenerative agriculture target and are now aiming > to spread these practices across 10 million acres of farmland globally by > 2030. I know that we have the expertise and ambition to meet these goals, but we can’t do it alone. To make this a reality, we need EU policymakers to deliver a coherent and enabling regulatory framework that’s fit for purpose, based on three guiding principles.  Firstly, policymakers must match ambition with investment. Strong public funding is essential, but the CAP should be reimagined to enable co-investment through blended finance models, where public and private capital work together to accelerate impact. Private investment should be results driven, allowing trusted private-sector partners, who operate at size and scale, to co-design solutions with farmers.  Secondly, payments should be simpler and pay farmers for what really matters. This requires rewarding farmers not just for compliance but also for delivering real, measurable environmental benefits such as healthier soils, lower emissions, cleaner water, and richer biodiversity. Farming is unlike most other businesses, with income around 40 percent lower than non-agricultural income,1, which is why CAP incentives must reflect the true costs farmers face, including machinery upgrades and land-use shifts. And the system should incentivize progress over perfection — farmers who are already taking action should be compensated accordingly.  Thirdly, the CAP must recognize that farmers need support beyond payments. Investing in climate information systems, knowledge sharing networks, rural infrastructure and novel technologies will help accelerate and scale the implementation of new techniques — while ensuring profitability. Travelling across Europe to meet our teams on the ground, I see firsthand how local needs differ, so farmers should also be free to choose the solutions that are best suited to their region and crops to ensure policies are impactful.    > “Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private > partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full > agrifood value chain. Archana Jagannathan And PepsiCo is committed to being part of that solution. Together with like-minded partners, we’re fully committed to growing food in a way that revitalizes the earth, supports farmer livelihoods, and feeds a growing population.  

BRUSSELS — Europe’s agriculture ministers have a message for the European Commission: Hands off the billions of euros of public money that go to farmers each year. The ministers, led by Italy and Greece, used their monthly summit in Brussels on Monday to push back hard against any attempt to fold the bloc’s €386.6 billion Common Agricultural Policy into a broader, more flexible EU funding model. Their warning comes just weeks before the Commission unveils its post-2027 proposal for the EU’s next seven-year budget and the next chapter of the CAP, both expected in July. The message was pointed: This is their policy, and they won’t let it be redesigned by bean counters in Brussels. “The single fund would be the end of the Common Agricultural Policy,” Portuguese Agriculture Minister José Manuel Fernandes said, rejecting Commission ideas to merge farm and regional development funds into a single national envelope. “What has success must not be undone.” The “single fund” idea, floated in internal Commission talks, would reframe how EU money is allocated, potentially tying farm spending more directly to broad political goals such as defense or digital transition. Farm ministers see it as a direct threat to the bloc’s shared pot of money they help control, warning it would make it easier to siphon money away from farmers, and harder to ensure agriculture remains integral to the EU project. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen, who has pushed back against the budget revamp, tried to calm the waters, telling ministers the CAP remains “crucial” and pledging to maintain its “integrity,” while also promising a version that would be “more streamlined and targeted.” | Olivier Hoslet/EPA-EFE A joint paper backed by 14 countries, including France, Austria, Ireland, Portugal, Latvia and others echoed that fear, saying: “Another substantial reform will put the much-needed stability and predictability of the agricultural sector and food security at risk.” The ministers insist the CAP must remain “separate, dedicated and independent,” with its two-pillar structure intact. Spain’s Luis Planas was unequivocal: “We will continue fighting in the Council and in the [European] Parliament,” he said. “I hope the Commission does not make the mistake of putting forward a proposal that fails to meet the basic expectations of the sector.” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has previously called for a “more flexible” EU budget focused on newer priorities such as artificial intelligence and climate resilience. “The new normal is anything but normal,” she said earlier this month. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen, who has pushed back against the budget revamp, tried to calm the waters, telling ministers the CAP remains “crucial” and pledging to maintain its “integrity,” while also promising a version that would be “more streamlined and targeted.”

On the flat plains of central Poland, where densely packed poultry sheds crowd the landscape, the future of Europe’s meat industry hums to the rhythm of millions of broiler chickens. Inside, birds bred to grow at record speed shuffle under the constant glow of artificial light, each one a copy of the last. They live fast, grow faster and end their lives in industrial kill lines — destined for export to Germany, the U.K. and Saudi Arabia. Chicken isn’t just dinner. Here — and across much of the world — it’s a policy choice. From Brussels to Brasília, policymakers have long championed poultry as a “transition meat” — a pragmatic alternative to climate-intensive beef. Chicken is lower-emission, relatively affordable, scalable across global markets and often promoted as a leaner, lower-fat option compared with pork or beef. In political shorthand: the least-worst option. But as a fresh wave of highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as bird flu, sweeps across continents — killing hundreds of millions of birds, infecting some mammal species and prompting sweeping lockdowns — the virus is edging closer to spilling over into humans. That is putting the poultry playbook under stress. In the U.S., more than 90 million birds have been culled over the past year. In Poland, the hardest-hit EU country, over 11.5 million were culled in the first months of 2025 to stop the disease from spreading. Behind those numbers lie deeper dilemmas: ethical shortcuts, epidemiological risk and a protein system optimized for speed, not resilience. BRUSSELS CLAMPS DOWN ON THE COOP The European Commission moved in early April to expand protection zones and tighten biosecurity rules in Poland, which alone accounted for some 80 of the EU’s 200 confirmed outbreaks of highly pathogenic bird flu this year. The Commission had warned that Poland’s initial response posed a risk to biosecurity in the EU’s borderless internal market and threatened measures that would have effectively shut down all exports from the country. Under pressure from Warsaw, Brussels stepped back from its toughest proposals, but not without conditions: The Commission asked the Polish authorities to present an “action plan” to contain the virus, which it agreed to monitor closely. Commission food safety spokesperson Eva Hrnčířová emphasized that the response was “not something about Poland without Poland,” noting that the agreed measures were drawn up “together with the Polish national and regional authorities” and “based on information from Poland.” The aim, Hrnčířová added, was “to create protection rather than restriction.” What’s notable is where that plan came from. As Polish Agriculture Minister Czesław Siekierski explained in a radio interview, the proposed measures — including containment zones and limits on introducing new flocks, but no halt to production or exports — came from the poultry industry itself and were then adopted by the government. The plan was formally endorsed by Poland’s chief veterinary officer and submitted to Brussels as the country’s official response. “This was a proposal from the producers,” Siekierski said. “And it was passed to Brussels as our official position.” Siekierski has repeatedly defended the sector’s symbolic and economic role, calling it “the flagship of Polish agriculture.” But he also acknowledged: “The problem of avian influenza in Poland cannot be solved without bearing some costs — but what matters is finding systemic solutions.” No EU country has more at stake. Once a modest agricultural player, Poland is now the bloc’s poultry powerhouse — responsible for nearly one in five chickens produced and a third of all exports. The sector supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and sends more than half its output abroad. Its rise was turbocharged by industrial scale and genetic homogeneity. Most Polish broilers come from a few breeds that reach slaughter weight in just five weeks. That efficiency is driven by tight vertical integration: Major poultry companies control nearly every stage of production — from breeding and feed mills to slaughterhouses and export. The result is a high-performing machine, but also a house of cards. Nearly half of Poland’s poultry is produced in just two regions, Wielkopolskie and Mazowieckie, where farms sit tightly packed. Poland’s chief veterinary officer, Krzysztof Jażdżewski, recently admitted that “chicken houses built on top of each other” create ideal conditions for the virus to spread. And when the virus gets in, the consequences escalate quickly. Most of the millions of birds being culled aren’t actually sick. But in a system built for maximum output, the detection of even a single infection can mean killing entire sheds — sometimes hundreds of thousands of birds at once. The logic is brutally simple: slaughter the whole flock to stop the virus from jumping to the next farm. Biosecurity enforcement remains patchy. Jażdżewski has warned of a shortage of trained veterinary inspectors, saying: “We have a problem with boots on the ground.” Basic safeguards like disinfecting equipment and securing feed supplies aren’t always applied consistently. But even perfect biosecurity may not be enough. One state-affiliated epidemiologist, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told POLITICO that the system’s design allows outbreaks to escalate rapidly. “When a virus like this lands in a region with high farm concentration, it’s like throwing a spark into a powder keg,” they said. Once inside, it spreads through trucks, equipment, clothing — even dust and feathers carried by the wind. This epidemiologist noted that while there have been discussions about limiting how closely farms can be sited, “the law doesn’t work backward” — meaning existing clusters would likely remain. INDUSTRY DEFENDS THE MODEL Poland’s poultry industry rejects the idea that the system’s scale or structure is to blame. In a written response to POLITICO, the National Poultry Council argued that outbreaks are primarily driven by wild birds — not farm density. The group also pushed back against suggestions that producers should shoulder more of the costs, insisting that poultry businesses already invest heavily in biosecurity and that “professional, economically strong farms are precisely those best positioned” to uphold standards. The EU-wide industry group AVEC struck a similar tone, telling POLITICO that production at scale “does not necessarily increase” the risk of large-scale outbreaks. It emphasized that keeping birds indoors, as is common in conventional systems, helps minimize contact with wild birds. Some industry representatives go further. “We cannot agree to let irresponsible producers repeatedly expose the whole poultry sector to losses,” said Paweł Podstawka, head of the Polish Federation of Poultry Farmers and Egg Producers, in comments to Polish media. He called for licensing poultry farming as a profession. While welcoming the deal with Brussels, he warned: “If we don’t improve, there won’t be any leniency next time.” Major poultry companies control nearly every stage of production — from breeding and feed mills to slaughterhouses and export. | Rehan Khan/EPA Other European countries have faced similar risks — but not on Poland’s scale. France, once the EU’s epicenter for avian influenza, has recorded just a single farm outbreak this year. In Germany and the Netherlands, most cases have been among wild birds, with only sporadic infections on farms. THE GEOPOLITICS OF CHICKEN Supporters of the poultry-first strategy emphasize the climate calculus. Compared with beef, chicken emits up to 90 percent less CO₂ per kilo of protein. It also uses far less water and land.  The World Bank now touts chicken as a climate asset — one of the least polluting animal proteins and a tool for reducing food system emissions. But those environmental gains come with trade-offs. Male chick culling, still widespread outside Germany and France, sees hundreds of millions of baby birds killed each year for being unprofitable. The dominant broiler breeds have been called “ticking time bombs,” prone to chronic pain and heart failure. Antibiotic resistance, driven in part by prophylactic use, looms as a largely unspoken crisis. In 2023, the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization described poultry and eggs as essential to human health, especially in low-income contexts. But just two years later, the same agency is raising the alarm. As H5N1 mutates and spreads to mammals — including dairy cows and wild carnivores — the agency has warned of “serious impacts” on food security and public health. The growing ability of the virus to jump species has reignited fears of a zoonotic leap to humans. “This is more than an agricultural crisis,” FAO Deputy Director General Beth Bechdol said in March. “The uncontrolled spread of avian influenza and other zoonotic diseases pose serious risks to global health, to human health, to economic stability — just as we have seen with Ebola and other human pandemics.” THE SYSTEM HOLDS — FOR NOW Change, if it comes, won’t be painless. Synthetic, or lab-grown, meat remains years from mainstream approval. Plant-based alternatives are stagnating. There’s no clear successor to chicken on the protein horizon, giving the poultry lobby staying power and broiler chickens time to keep growing. The deal between Warsaw and Brussels remains shaky. An EU veterinary mission visited Poland in late April to assess whether the action plan is being enforced — and whether it’s working. A final report is expected in the coming weeks. A negative verdict could trigger new restrictions. Several scientists echoed concerns that it’s not wild birds or lapses in hygiene, but the industrial model itself that makes outbreaks hard to contain — whether in Poland, the Netherlands or the U.S. “If consumers were willing to pay more, the industry could afford to reduce intensity. But as long as price pressure rules, production stays big, dense — and risky,” said Lars Erik Larsen, a leading Danish virologist at the University of Copenhagen. Even top-tier biosecurity can fail, he warned: “Somebody will always make a mistake — and once the virus gets into these dense systems, it spreads fast.” While vaccination is often floated as a solution, it’s no silver bullet. Vaccines reduce symptoms but don’t always block transmission — meaning the virus may still circulate silently in flocks. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization described poultry and eggs as essential to human health. | Caroline Brehman/EPA Even Siekierski now seems to grasp how fragile the system has become. Over the weekend, he posted candidly on social media: Producers hit by outbreaks get generous compensation; those spared enjoy high prices. “Who pays for this? The state budget,” he wrote, noting that the ministry had burned through its annual biosecurity funds by March. “That’s why I believe it’s time to seriously start an agricultural transformation,” he added. “TOGETHER. But that, of course, is the hardest part …”

Hungary on Thursday confirmed a fifth outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) at a cattle farm in Rábapordány,  near the Slovak border, escalating concerns over the spread of the highly contagious livestock virus first detected in the country last month. The latest case, confirmed by laboratory tests Thursday afternoon, prompted authorities to place the facility — housing some 600 dairy cows — under immediate quarantine, Agriculture Minister István Nagy announced on social media. Veterinary teams have begun preparations to cull the entire herd in accordance with emergency containment protocols . The virus was previously confirmed at four farms in Győr-Moson-Sopron county — Kisbajcs, Levél, Darnózseli and Dunakiliti — where over 4,000 animals were culled . Neighboring Slovakia, which has also recorded six outbreaks since March, declared a state of emergency last month and continues to enforce strict border and transport restrictions. Authorities have now established a three-kilometer protection zone and a 10-km surveillance zone around the latest Hungarian site. Contact tracing and additional testing are underway. While FMD poses no threat to humans, it can devastate cattle, sheep and pig populations, with huge economic consequences. Government officials estimate the direct cost of Hungary’s outbreak, the first in 50 years, already runs into millions of euros, with additional losses from halted exports and long-term industry disruptions expected to drive that further. In Slovakia, similar outbreaks have already cost an estimated €8 million . Some Hungarian and Slovak officials have floated unsubstantiated theories suggesting the virus may have been deliberately introduced, though experts warn against speculation without evidence . The United Kingdom has banned personal imports of meat and dairy from the EU, citing the need to protect its farmers and food security from further spread . The European Commission is conducting genome sequencing to help trace the origin of the virus .