LONDON — Keir Starmer will be happy with his haul from Monday’s Brexit summit. But EU fishermen will be even happier. The British prime minister used Monday’s EU-U.K. Brexit summit to offer major concessions on EU access to U.K. fishing waters — in exchange for a host of favorable terms he’s betting tired voters will thank him for. Ahead of the gathering at London’s swish Lancaster House — billed as hitting reset on years of post-Brexit bad blood — Brussels was widely thought to be seeking a 10-year extension to the generous fishing rights its fleets already enjoy in U.K. waters under Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. London offered up four. And in the end, they settled on 12. The giveaway, pounced on by critics, is a political gamble for Starmer, who appears to be trading a hit to a relatively small by symbolic part of the U.K. economy for wins elsewhere. The decision immediately gave euroskeptics like Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage and embattled Tory chief Kemi Badenoch a clear line of attack. Farage declared the agreement “the end of the fishing industry” while Badenoch branded it a “sell-out.” Euroskeptic parts of the British press are already following their lead, and even Johnson himself re-emerged to rubbish it in colorful terms. While downplaying the idea that fishing communities will be severely hit, and offering up both some fresh investment and an easing of food checks as a sweetener, Starmer is hoping his wins in other policy areas will catch Brits’ attention. In getting the green light for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and re-entry into the internal electricity market, the U.K. has effectively been allowed to break one of Brussels’ cardinal Brexit rules: no “cherry-picking.” Sure, London has sign up to EU rules and listen to European Court of Justice judgments on those topics. But Brussels has until now been very clear that sector-by-sector participation in parts of the single market was not on the table. Several million tons of fish clearly helped change their minds. TRANSPARENT RE-BRAND The fish probably also appear to have helped get the deal over the line without too much fuss on another tricky area for Starmer: youth mobility. At various points in the last year Brussels has looked ready to sink the reset entirely over visas allowing young people to live and work in the U.K. and vice versa, which it regards as a priority. Keir Starmer long said he had no plans to agree any such scheme — fearing it smelled too much like EU free movement and was politically difficult. | Pool photo by Jason Alden/EFE via EPA Starmer long said he had no plans to agree any such scheme — fearing it smelled too much like EU free movement and was politically difficult. In recent weeks he has softened his stance to get the wider deal over the line. But while the policy, transparently rebranded as a “youth experience” scheme, is in the negotiating roadmap agreed at the summit, the wording is somewhat minimalist and various parts of the EU’s original plan are missing. The agreed text states that the scheme will be time-limited and “on terms to be mutually agreed”. There is no mention of lower tuition fees or how long the time-limit would be. One EU diplomat described the policy as a “work-in-progress.” Starmer insisted at his press conference closing the summit that the youth scheme would have a cap on numbers. In fact, the agreement only says that both sides will “ensure that the overall number of participants is acceptable to both sides,” which is a little different. There are some other devils in the detail, too. At the same media briefing, Starmer made a big deal about Brits being allowed to use EU passport gates. In reality, it’ll be up to individual EU member states to decide that. Some have shown no inclination to fill their express lanes with holidaying Brits. LOOKING AHEAD Some of the more politically difficult negotiations have been kicked into the future, too. Youth mobility need not have been so politically fraught for Starmer. The U.K. has signed similar arrangements with a dozen countries from Uruguay to Japan without incident. In reality it is just a visa and nothing like freedom of movement. But in ruling it out for so long and agonizing about its political meaning, Downing Street has arguably made the scheme a flashpoint. This was always a curious choice when Brussels was so insistent on the policy — and it may come back to bite them. Farage will certainly be gnashing its teeth when the details are agreed. There are other tricky topics ahead, too. The agreement, Erasmus+ association, and British participation in EU’s SAFE defense fund all sound relatively unconventional. But all are likely to require the British government to open its wallet and make financial contributions — which collectively could prompt accusations of another “sell-out.” For now though, Starmer can enjoy his cherry-picking — and Brussels can enjoy its fish.

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

LONDON — Celebrities and other public figures could be offered fresh legal protections to stop artificial intelligence tools mimicking their likenesses, under plans being considered by the British government. Ministers are preparing to launch a consultation as soon as Tuesday on controversial changes to the U.K. copyright regime that would allow AI firms to train models on copyrighted works for commercial purposes, unless rights holders expressly opt out. But the plans — first reported by POLITICO and aimed at encouraging more AI investment in the U.K. — have sparked a fierce backlash from the creative sectors. As a sweetener, the consultation is now expected to include the promise of a new “personality right,” according to three people briefed on the plans, granted anonymity like others in this article to speak freely. This would offer people, particularly stars who rely heavily on protecting their image, additional legal protections against the use of generative AI tools to mimic their features and likeness without permission. The new right could also help combat the threat of malicious deepfakes. Such personality rights already exist in several jurisdictions, including parts of the U.S. ARTISTS’ ANGER The possibility of a new right is unlikely to assuage the creative sector’s wider concerns about the copyright shake-up, however. At a briefing in parliament earlier this week, author Kate Mosse warned the government’s plans would would “kill originality” — a stance backed by Beatles star Paul McCartney. The sector argues that a regime in which content holders have to explicitly “opt in” to AI training is fairer. The proposals also prompted a warning this week from the Copyright Alliance, a U.S. media body, that any British move that “degrades copyright” risks a “a legal environment that discourages U.K. and U.S. creators and rights holders from participating and investing in creative endeavors within the United Kingdom.” “Copyright laws should not be cast aside in favor of new policies obligating creators to effectively subsidize AI technologies under the misguided belief that doing so is necessary to incentivize AI technologies,” a letter from the group to Technology Secretary Peter Kyle warned. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy insisted that the upcoming British consultation will consider a range of options, insisting ministers “genuinely haven’t made a decision about the best way to go about this.” One industry figure familiar with the government’s thinking said they expected the consultation to argue that the U.K. risks missing out on opportunities from AI without making it easier for companies to develop models on reams of data in the country. A British government official said ministers believe the current situation, which has resulted in drawn out legal battles, is unsustainable, and that workable solution is needed to end the uncertainty. ‘WORST OF ALL WORLDS’ Several technical details would still have to be ironed out, however. Big questions remain, including on how content holders would be expected to signpost that AI companies don’t have permission to use their data. The consultation is also likely to require AI companies to be more transparent in revealing the data their models are trained on. Industry body TechUK has said the U.K.’s current regime represents the “worst of all worlds.” It has urged the government to set out a clear intention to move towards a commercial content licensing market underpinned by an “opt-out” model. “This is one of the issues that we need to resolve in order to get to the point where, across the economy, we can make full use of AI,” said Antony Walker, deputy CEO of TechUK. “The current uncertainty is not just hindering upstream AI innovation in the U.K., but also its adoption across the economy,” he said. “It’s in everybody’s interests that we move forward and resolve the issue. And I think the government recognizes that.” The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been approached for comment.