Sarah Brown is the chair of the global children’s charity Theirworld. Justin van Fleet is the president of Theirworld. From day one, every parent instinctively knows what their child needs: A safe environment, proper nutrition, spaces for play, medical attention, loving childcare and high-quality early education.  Time and time again, early investment has been proven to bring the greatest returns, not just for the child and their family but for the whole of society. And given that up to 90 percent of a child’s brain development takes place between birth and the age of five, it is probably the smartest social investment of all. Nobel Laureate James Heckman has shown that children who go to preschool are nearly 50 percent more likely to complete secondary school, no matter their background, and that each dollar invested in early childhood education can yield a return as high as $17. According to a new Theirworld study, results can be even more immediate, as investment in these early years can allow parents to return to work and impact poverty reduction within the first few years. Yet, historically, both governments and aid donors have had trouble finding the funds to invest properly in early childhood development, preferring to delay until children are in school — and even then, to invest more heavily in the later years of educational life. Too often, the youngest are at the back of the line. Investing in them is seen as a nice-to-have, not a must-have, leaving families to carry too great a portion of the burden of childcare — which is often excessively expensive or of poor quality. So why are we waiting? International commitments to early childhood have said the right things, but they have made little or no progress. For example, achieving quality early childhood development was included in the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals yet remains off target by most metrics. Inequality takes root in the first five years of life. | Juan Mabromata/Getty Images Similarly, in 2018, the G20 launched its Initiative for Early Childhood Development. The initiative set ambitious goals to address the disparities in early childhood among its member countries, as the inequality between low- and high-income groups are a problem in every type of economy. It included a pledge for all member nations to invest in the early years. However, nearly half of the world’s children — about 350 million — still have no access to childcare, and 175 million aren’t enrolled in preschool education.  Had the G20 followed through on its pledge, had member states’ spending on childcare and child benefits increased by just 0.6 percent of GDP, our projections show that 16.7 million children could have been lifted out of poverty by year two. Moreover, increasing universal childcare spending by just 0.4 percent of GDP could have brought 67 million more women into the workforce across the G20 by year three. This same increase could have prepared up to 5 million more children for primary school, potentially achieving near 100 percent school enrollment rates as well. These results would have been striking. But what was a lost opportunity could now be a source of great potential.  At last, momentum is shifting toward stronger support for early years investment. After Covid-19, the soaring cost of childcare drove working parents — usually women — out of the workforce in their millions, while the effects of months or years of lost learning on young children made families around the world acutely aware of the importance of getting the early years right. As such, voters in the U.K., U.S. and elsewhere have made early childcare and education a key issue. Governments are now waking up too, and importantly, rather than richer northern nations, major developing economies and medium-sized economies are the ones taking the lead on early childhood policies.  At the recent U.N. General Assembly, Theirworld held an event that brought experts from a wide range of specialties — including climate, gender and business — together with government ministers, youth activists and celebrities. They were there to discuss the importance of investing in the early years as a strategy for tackling inequality and poverty.   Paraguay’s Minister of Childhood and Adolescence Walter Gutierrez described how his country is “truly striving to transform the fortunes of its citizens from the early years,” opening 100 early childhood care centers and launching a school food program.  Brazil’s Minister of Social Development Wellington Dias expressed his deep frustration with the global rise of child hunger and poverty, and acknowledged how early years investment can reduce these blights. Accordingly, Brazil has introduced policies and programs covering health, school meals and childcare, and the country created a benefit for early childhood that has already helped 9 million children aged up to six. But Brazil will hopefully do so much more.  As the chair of the G20 summit this month, the country has been urged by more than 150 civil society and grassroots organizations — as part of the Act for Early Years campaign — to elevate the case for treating early childhood development as an investment in a public good rather than a cost. Due to demand, both domestic and from across G20 countries, its new Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty will have a special emphasis on early childhood, and it will make a concerted effort with donors, financial institutions and national governments to secure commitments to early childhood.  Of course, while we are hopeful for a significant commitment at the summit in Rio de Janeiro, we also urge a note of caution: Commitments have come and gone before. However, even to those of us who have been advocating for this cause for a decade or more, this time does feel different.  Brazil has introduced policies and programs covering health, school meals and childcare. | Pablo Porciuncula/Getty Images There is an organized global movement ready to press for the delivery of results. The Act for Early Years campaign consists of global and grassroots organizations, businesses, celebrities and youth campaigners who are ready to track progress and offer a platform to those taking action. And it will call out those who don’t act in the interest of the world’s youngest and most vulnerable children. Our request is for at least $1 billion in new funding commitments from governments, international donors, businesses and philanthropic donors to kick-start progress and action for the youngest children, as well as a major financing summit in order to boost momentum. Six years on from the G20’s initiative in Argentina, there is no dispute: Inequality takes root in the first five years of life, and only by acting now will we break the cycle of inequality and poverty.

Julia Leferman | © The Brewers of Europe Europe’s beers are deeply rooted in heritage and innovation. They are embedded in our culture. Crucially, European beer is an engine of growth across the European economy – which is all too easily overlooked. Last week, The Brewers of Europe released a report by Europe Economics showing just how much the beer value chain contributes to the continent’s economic fabric, supporting jobs and generating government revenues across all member states. Over 2 million jobs in the EU – around 1 percent of total EU employment – are directly or indirectly created by beer. From the farmers who cultivate the barley and hops to the brewers who perfect their craft, to the bar staff who serve the final products, beer creates jobs across a diverse range of sectors. And despite the post-Covid challenges, skyrocketing production costs and diminished consumer spending power, job creation in the beer value chain is up by 300,000 since 2020. > Over 2 million jobs in the EU – around 1 percent of total EU employment – are > directly or indirectly created by beer. shutterstock_599487422 – © Shutterstock, dugdax The report shows that consumer spending on beer adds up to some €110 billion per year, meaning that beer contributes over €52 billion in value-added to the EU economy. Beer also generates over €40 billion in government revenues across the EU through various taxes. This, however, comes at a time when excise burdens and production costs are particularly putting a break on the capacity to relaunch beer consumption in bars, pubs, cafés and restaurants. The hospitality side of the market generates the most value, but it has also struggled to return to pre-Covid levels. © The Brewers of Europe Responsibility One of the areas where brewing is at the forefront, helping to maintain the European beer sector as an economic powerhouse, is innovation – in promoting responsible drinking, product development and environmental sustainability. Let’s start with responsibility – where part of our innovative commitment is also tied into product development. Beer is already low alcohol, with an average 4.5 percent ABV, but brewers are widening their range of lower alcohol beers. Today, one in every 15 beers consumed in Europe is non-alcohol. Brewers have not only invested in improving the taste and variety of these products, but also in the promotion and availability of them, really backing this side of their business. Brewers are empowering consumers with the tools to take responsible decisions. This is about choice: if people don’t wish to, or simply shouldn’t, consume alcohol, they can still participate in the social experience of sharing a beer with friends and family. At the same time, brewers have pioneered initiatives in education and community engagement to encourage a better drinking culture and help reduce alcohol-related harm. Five years ago, we rolled out Proud to be Clear, detailing alcohol content, calorie values and ingredients on beer labels. These voluntary actions ensure we are empowering consumers, not solely through the products available to them, but also through the information provided. Brewing sustainability Brewers have integrated environmentally friendly practices into every aspect of the production cycle and supply chain. Breweries use energy-efficient technologies, invest in the circular economy and reduce waste. For example, they’ve reduced the volume of water needed to produce each liter of beer. As for energy, breweries invest heavily in renewable sources like solar panels and wind turbines. We are also trailblazers when it comes to packaging. Our use of Deposit Return Systems has massively reduced waste and promoted recycling for cans. Our 50-litre kegs are the ultimate sustainable packaging, with a lifespan of over 30 years. Glass beer bottles are collected for reuse or returned for recycling in collection systems that prevent waste for landfill. On top of this, breweries are pushing boundaries with lightweight bottles and biodegradable materials. It makes business sense, too. And finally, when it comes to innovation, brewers’ craft is as much a science as it is an art. New flavors, ingredients and brewing techniques are attracting a new generation of beer enthusiasts and helping bring adult consumers across, or back, to beer – the low-alcohol category that now also increasingly includes even lower and non-alcohol beers. > When it comes to innovation, brewers’ craft is as much a science as it is an > art. New flavors, ingredients and brewing techniques are attracting a new > generation of beer enthusiasts. Going for growth As the EU embarks on a new chapter – with a new European Commission and European Parliament – there is rightly an emphasis on promoting economic growth. Europe boasts an enviable food and drinks sector, which has strategic importance to the economy. The brewing sector is key to this – an important job and value creator – and we are doing this alongside our partners. Europe should be proud of its beer, promoting and supporting it both within the EU and around the world. > Europe boasts an enviable food and drinks sector, which has strategic > importance to the economy. The brewing sector is key to this . This is not just about beer. It is about ensuring that Europe remains a place where tradition and innovation come together to shape a prosperous, sustainable future. Policymakers can shape a regulatory framework that shackles that growth, but they can also provide a supportive policy framework. By encouraging innovation in lower alcohol products, setting policies that allow their continued availability and marketing, utilizing excise to nudge consumers towards lower alcohol products and stimulate consumption in the hospitality sector, and by setting environmental legislation that triggers further investment in renewables and supports the effective packaging systems already in place. We look forward to working closely with EU decision-makers to foster economic growth, job creation and a future where Europe continues to lead in quality and creativity. Let’s all drink a beer to that!

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Conservative Leader Rishi Sunak had plenty to go on as speculation swirls in Westminster about budget tax-hikes — and as Keir Starmer’s government continues to bat away questions on freebies. But Sunak opted for a curveball, picking global affairs as Foreign Secretary David Lammy prepares for a China trip. Will Lammy use his visit to condemn China over aggressive exercises in the crucial Taiwan strait? Critical friend? Starmer said Beijing’s activity in the strait is “not conducive to peace and stability.” But he trotted out a familiar refrain, balancing co-operation on issues like climate change while vowing to challenge China on human rights. Bookmark this page and see if it actually happens. Pressed on China’s detention of Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai, Starmer agreed the jailing was “politically motivated” — and answered in the affirmative when grilled on whether the government will sanction any Chinese business involved in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Lobbying rumble: Sunak pressed the PM on why Britain’s overseas lobbying register, meant to shield the U.K. from interference from foreign states has been “halted” under the new government. The set-up has been years in the making and was supposed to put the U.K.’s rules into line with allies like Australia and the U.S. But the Home Office said last month that it is “no longer expected that the scheme’s requirements will come into force in 2024.” But but but: Starmer said the claim was “not correct.” Sunak insisted his question was indeed correct. So that’s all sorted then. One for intrepid lobby journalists to dig into. Back to normal: The Tory leader then further cheered up his diminished band of backbenchers by going after the PM on a subject dear to their hearts: freedom of speech on campus. “British universities are increasingly a rich feeding ground for China to exert political influence,” Sunak said, and asked why the government had ditched Tory legislation on the subject. Starmer shot back: “I really don’t think party political points on national security are at all appropriate.” Party political points at PMQs? Never! Nothing new under the sun: If any further proof was needed that PMQs is scripted, Starmer’s final answer saw him happily trot some … party political points on how Labour will — all together now — “fix the foundations” to “grow our economy” and “rebuild our country.” Helpful intervention of the week: Labour’s Teesside MP Luke Myer celebrated investment in carbon capture and claimed to have met normal people applauding the government’s plans. That let Starmer bang on about his big investment summit earlier this week. Unhelpful gaffe of the week: He’s only been doing this for 100 days now, but you’d think Keir Starmer might have learned he’s actually in charge. In an unfortunate slip of the tongue, however, Starmer called Sunak “prime minister.” Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 6/10 … Sunak 8/10. Sunak just edged it. Although he studiously avoided the open goal of Labour’s pre-budget tax speculation and isn’t exactly getting his defeated troops cheering the house down, the PM had some awkward questions as the government tries to keep a lid on criticism of its China policy and gently re-engages with Beijing. The outgoing Tory leader has just two sessions left before he leaves the stage. Is he getting quite good at this?

The Biden administration is issuing a new ultimatum to the Israeli government: address a deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Gaza within 30 days or risk restrictions on future U.S. military aid. In a Sunday letter to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that the U.S. is deeply alarmed by the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and demanded more actions from Israel to allow aid to enter the territory, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. He was confirming a CNN report from earlier Tuesday. According to a copy of the letter obtained by the network, the two officials called for “urgent and sustained actions by your government this month to reverse this trajectory.” The Oct. 13 letter gives Israel 30 days to demonstrate its commitment to addressing a number of U.S. concerns, a deadline which would elapse following the presidential election in November. If Israel fails, it could risk facing additional hurdles to accessing U.S. foreign military financing. It’s not clear how much progress Israel would have to make within that time frame to assuage the Biden administration. In the letter, Blinken and Austin outline specific action items for Israel to ameliorate the increased risk of starvation in the territory, including allowing at least 350 trucks a day to enter Gaza through the territory’s four major crossings ahead of winter. And the two want to see the U.S. and Israel create a new communication channel to discuss incidents surrounding civilians that would begin to be used by the end of this month. The administration also wants Israel to implement pauses across Gaza to enable aid groups to distribute supplies and provide vaccinations over the next four months. And Israel must also allow people in the Al-Mawasi humanitarian zone inside Gaza to move inland before winter and improve security for humanitarian convoys and movements. Aid workers have been the subject of strikes by the Israeli military even when they’ve previously notified the Israel Defense Forces of their movements. It’s not the first time the U.S. has sent a letter to Israel voicing concerns over its handling of humanitarian assistance. Kirby told reporters that Austin and Blinken sent a similar letter in April, and “received a constructive response from the Israelis.” But this letter comes as Israel has threatened to launch a siege operation in northern Gaza to root out Hamas militants that have reemerged in that area of the war-torn enclave. The U.N. has warned that food has not entered northern Gaza since Oct. 1. Those claims prompted calls from Vice President Kamala Harris to Israel to ramp up humanitarian efforts. And the disclosure of the letter also follows an Israeli airstrike over the weekend against the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in central Gaza. Images of the aftermath of the attack, which Israel argues was a “precise strike on terrorists who were operating inside a command and control center” near the hospital, circulated online showing civilians burning alive in tents. Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said the timing of the letter comes as “humanitarian aid still is stalling to get into Gaza.” Singh added that the U.S. is “looking to see concrete measures taken to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza.” Kirby emphasized that the letter “was not meant as a threat” and that this letter is part of ongoing conversations with the Israeli government over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. “That’s what you can do with your ally. And it’s not the first time we’ve communicated that to Israel, but hopefully, you know, we won’t have to communicate it again,” Kirby continued. It is unlikely, however, that the U.S. would make good on threats to withhold foreign military financing to Israel. Over the past year, Israel has defied U.S. ultimatums and experienced little punishment from its ally. Just this week, the U.S. also announced it would deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to Israel (along with U.S. troops to operate it), providing a major upgrade to Israel’s defensive capabilities. Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

PARIS — Could it be a case of all bark but no bite? Paris has threatened to use all its heft to ensure the sell-off of part of Sanofi’s over-the-counter business remains producing certain medicines in France. But, during a visit to Sanofi’s factory in Normandy on Monday, France’s economy and industry ministers seemed more focused on reassuring workers and citizens that they had little to fear from the takeover by American fund CD&R, than threatening to block the deal. In previous controversial takeovers, France’s powerful economy ministry didn’t hesitate to threaten a veto in the name of French interests. This time things looked different. Following a cross-party backlash against the deal, the two ministers traipsed out at the Lisieux paracetamol factory and announced alongside Sanofi’s top brass that the American takeover should have no impact on French jobs and medicine supplies. “We will be asking for extremely precise, strong and intangible conditions regarding what happens next,” said Economy Minister Antoine Armand as he visited the paracetamol factory with Junior Minister for Industry Marc Ferracci on Monday. The economy ministry told reporters that Paris will launch an investment screening procedure into the planned sale of Sanofi subsidiary Opella to the American private equity firm for €15 billion. The government is seeking to conclude a deal between Sanofi, CD&R and the state, to force the buyer to maintain jobs and investments in France. “We will be asking for extremely precise, strong and intangible conditions regarding what happens next,” said Economy Minister Antoine Armand as he visited the paracetamol factory. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images The two ministers promised to keep production of over-the-counter drugs in France by threatening economic sanctions if those commitments are not respected. And, if needed, the state could also buy up shares of Opella and influence the company’s decisions as a shareholder, Armand added. In a sign that Sanofi and the government are on the same page, Armand and Ferracci visited the factory with Sanofi Chair Frédéric Oudéa, a heavyweight financial services veteran who, until last year, was CEO of French bank Société Générale for 15 years. French President Emmanuel Macron also backed up this position, when asked at a separate event on Monday. “I would distinguish two things: activity in France and capital ownership,” he said, referring to commitments to maintain jobs, production and medicines in France. “On capital ownership, the government has the instruments to guarantee that France is protected. And so it’s up to the government to look at that.” But workers aren’t buying it. Employees at the Lisieux factory, which produces paracetamol, are on strike as they oppose the deal which they fear could threaten their jobs and France’s medicine supply. And French politics is on their side. On Friday, politicians from the whole political spectrum reacted with outrage to the news that Sanofi was in talks to sell a majority stake of Opella to CD&R, de facto putting Sanofi’s production of over-the-counter drugs into American hands. Big Pharmas selling off their over-the-counter drugs businesses isn’t a new concept. Back in 2018, Sanofi off-loaded its cheaper medicines business Zentiva to a U.S.-based private equity firm for €1.9 billion. The difference this time aside from the location — Zentiva was based in the Czech Republic, while Opella is in France — is that French citizens still recall harrowing memories of drug shortages from the pandemic. STRATEGIC AUTONOMY TESTED The omnipresent yellow boxes of Doliprane, the brand name of Sanofi’s paracetamol, are the most sold drug in France. Shortages of medicines, including paracetamol, during the coronavirus pandemic marked French people and fueled Paris’ push for more strategic autonomy. “Doliprane will continue to be produced in France, and not just because it’s a drug that’s popular with all French people, not just because it’s an industrial success story, but because our country’s sovereignty and the supply of sensitive and critical medicines is at stake,” Armand promised. France has been the front-runner in the European push to reshore medicine production back to the Continent and has given generous subsidies to bring to France the full supply chain of key medicines like paracetamol. The country currently produces paracetamol only thanks to the imported active ingredient. It is planning to produce the active ingredient as of 2026 in a new French factory to be opened by Seqens, also controlled by an American fund, that will supply Opella. An economy ministry official said the government will require the American buyer to keep the engagements with suppliers for several years and to buy the active ingredient from Seqens. While promising to do everything to keep medicine production in France, the French government doesn’t sound hostile to the deal. In the past, the French economy ministry publicly expressed its opposition to transatlantic takeovers, from supermarkets to nuclear components, killing off those deals. This time, however, the tone is very different; the government described the buyer as “a serious investment fund that presents positive prospects for the overall development of Opella as well as for the sites located in France.”

The U.S. is deploying an advanced missile defense system to Israel, along with dozens of soldiers to operate it. President Joe Biden ordered the Pentagon to send the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system — known as THAAD — to Israel in the coming days to help Israel fend off potential Iranian missile attacks and add to the Israeli government’s already robust missile defense infrastructure. The move “underscores the United States’ ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel, and to defend Americans in Israel,” Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder said in a statement Sunday. The ground-based system that can shoot down ballistic missiles is the latest in a steady buildup of U.S. forces in the region as Israel and Iran have engaged in the most significant rounds of strikes against each other in their histories, deepening fears of a wider regional war. Iran has already launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel in two attacks in April and October, which the Israelis have largely defeated with the help of the U.S., United Kingdom and France, as well as other countries in the region. The Biden administration has been in intensive talks with Israel on how they might respond to Iran having launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on Oct.1 in response to an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. While most of those missiles were defeated, a few penetrated Israeli air defenses leading to some to minor damage at one Israeli military air base. Over the last two months, the U.S. has doubled the number of fighter planes based in the Middle East by sending new air wings, and has dispatched a second aircraft carrier to the region, the second time since the summer the U.S. has two carriers in the area. During the October attack, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean fired at least a dozen missiles to knock down ballistic missiles, while the U.S. used F-15Es and F-16s to shoot down Iranian drones during Iran’s attack in April. The U.S. sent a THAAD battery and other air defense systems to the Middle East after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel that killed 1,200 people, the majority of them civilians. This would not be the first time a THAAD with U.S. troops has been dispatched to Israel, but it is the first time one has been sent with the expectation of engaging in combat. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Saturday, where he expressed concern about Israeli operations in southern Lebanon where Israeli soldiers are operating close to U.N. peacekeeping forces. Asked on Sunday why he gave permission to deploy the THAAD, Biden responded “to defend Israel.” He ignored follow-up questions as he left to board Air Force One.

The world stands at a critical juncture in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. With life expectancy rising globally and more people living longer, the number of individuals affected by dementia is expected to increase in the coming years – and by 2050 will affect as many as 139 million adults globally.[i]This looming crisis demands immediate, coordinated action from governments, healthcare systems and society at large. The 2023 G7 Nagasaki health ministers’ meeting reaffirmed the G7’s promise to promote research and development to improve health outcomes through the prevention, risk reduction, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of dementia including potential disease-modifying therapies.[ii] As the G7 health ministers convened in Italy, passing the torch to Canada for 2025, we call for renewed efforts to prioritize Alzheimer’s disease, the leading cause of dementia, as a public health priority. Despite this commitment, health systems across the world remain woefully unprepared to embrace new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, risking that European patients may be left behind the rest of the world in access to new tools and discouraging research that could lead to medical innovation where therapeutic options today are scarce.  The urgency for ensuring access to treatments and diagnosis Alzheimer’s disease is a devastating and fatal condition that robs individuals of their memories, independence and, ultimately, their futures. [iii] It is estimated that Alzheimer’s disease specifically impacts 416 million people worldwide, or more than one in five people aged 50 and above.[iv] In Europe alone, 7 million people are currently living with the disease, a number that could double by 2030.³ The wider impacts on health systems and economies are also profound – an estimated $2.8 trillion per year, a sum which is predicted to rise to $4.7 trillion by 2030.[v] > Alzheimer’s disease is a devastating and fatal condition that robs individuals > of their memories, independence and, ultimately, their futures. For far too long, a lack of new breakthroughs and a string of clinical trial failures has created helplessness and apathy to the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, leading to many – including healthcare professionals – thinking it is part of aging and there is nothing we can do. Still today, most cases of Alzheimer’s disease are misdiagnosed, diagnosed too late for treatment to be considered or never diagnosed at all.[iv] With newly investigated treatments that target the underlying pathology of the disease, we are potentially altering and slowing the course of disease progression and delaying the need for care services. Furthermore, advanced testing methods, such as blood-based biomarker tests, are potential game-changers in rapid and accurate diagnosis. > With newly investigated treatments that target the underlying pathology of the > disease, we are potentially altering and slowing the course of disease > progression A decade of remarkable progress The 2013 G8 Dementia Summit in London challenged the Alzheimer’s disease research community to develop a disease-modifying therapy by 2025.[vi] Today, there is not just one, but multiple therapies in the field that have been demonstrated to deliver meaningful benefits. We know that the hallmarks of the disease can appear two decades before symptoms manifest.[vii] We now possess the tools to respond to Alzheimer’s disease informed by patients’ genetic profiles. But only if the disease is detected early enough. Just as detecting cancer cells early and personalized medicine is a winning strategy, we are entering a new stage for Alzheimer’s disease response and management. > We now possess the tools to respond to Alzheimer’s disease informed by > patients’ genetic profiles. But only if the disease is detected early enough People around the world want and deserve access[viii] to diagnosis and treatment options available now, and we must ensure European patients are not left behind. Committing to a future where memories endure We have a historic opportunity to elevate the G7 target for a new era in the fight against dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, drawing on the latest scientific understanding, advanced detection and treatment tools for a potentially far stronger response. Lilly has driven scientific progress for over 35 years, and we have no plans to slow our efforts now. We envision a future where timely detection, accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment and prevention become reality. We are committed to collaborating with healthcare ecosystems to build the infrastructure needed to scale and adopt scientific advances. Together, we can change the discourse around Alzheimer’s disease and usher in a new era – one of support, understanding and hope.   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] Alzheimer’s Disease International. Dementia Statistics. Available at: https://www.alzint.org/about/dementia-facts-figures/dementia-statistics/ [ii] G7 Nagasaki Health Ministers’ Communiqué https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10500000/001096403.pdf [iii] EBC and EFPIA. (2023). RETHINKING Alzheimer’s disease: Detection and diagnosis. Available at: https://www.braincouncil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/RETHINK-AlzheimerDisease-Report_DEF3_HD_rvb_03042023.pdf [iv] Alzheimer’s Association (2022) Global estimates on the number of persons across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. Available at: https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.12694 [v] Nandi A, Counts N, Chen S, et al. Global and regional projections of the economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias from 2019 to 2050: A value of statistical life approach. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;51:101580. Published 2022 Jul 22. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101580. [vi] GOV.UK. (n.d.). G8 dementia summit communique. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g8-dementia-summit-agreements/g8-dementia-summit-communique. [vii] Aisen PS, Cummings J, Clifford RJ, On the path to 2025: understanding the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. Alzs Res Therapy. 2017 9: 60. [viii] World Alzheimer Report 2024 | Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) (alzint.org)

The Department of Justice’s landmark proposal to dismantle Google’s search monopoly offers the first clear window into how Washington’s accelerating antitrust effort could clip the wings of Big Tech giants — and also highlights political questions about how long the push will survive. Unlike European regulators targeting the same firms, President Joe Biden’s enforcers are swinging for the fences, proposing a radical restructuring of how Google works rather than chipping away at the company with fines. The Department of Justice’s landmark proposal to dismantle Google’s search monopoly offers the first clear window into how Washington’s accelerating antitrust effort could clip the wings of Big Tech giants — and also highlights political questions about how long the push will survive. Unlike European regulators targeting the same firms, President Joe Biden’s enforcers are swinging for the fences, proposing a radical restructuring of how Google works rather than chipping away at the company with fines. Spokespeople for the Harris campaign declined to comment on whether the vice president supports a Google breakup, or would maintain Biden’s antitrust stance on tech if elected president. Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said that while the GOP nominee has assembled a transition leadership group, “formal discussions of who will serve in a second Trump Administration [are] premature.” It’s possible that specifics could change as the DOJ finalizes its requests over the next month. But its aggressive proposal to cut Google down to size is already seen by antitrust experts as a signal of what could be coming for Big Tech — with America’s antitrust enforcers increasingly willing to take big shots at the most powerful companies on the planet. Florian Ederer, an economist at Boston University who specializes in competition policy, said the tentative proposal to spin off key Google products like Chrome or Android “would mark a historic moment in [digital] antitrust enforcement.” He said such a breakup “could have profound economic impacts, not only for Google but for the broader tech ecosystem.” Caffarra called it “a world away from the European approach,” which she framed as far too cautious. “That U.S. enforcement went from being way behind Europe — comatose until 2019 — to this in five years is a testament that antitrust is mainly about posture and drive, and regulators getting their act together,” Caffarra said. In addition to the DOJ, the Google search case was joined by the attorneys general of dozens of states, which remain co-plaintiffs. In a statement, Google attacked the DOJ’s “radical and sweeping proposals” and warned of “unintended consequences” — including weakened consumer privacy, the collapse of popular Google products and a decline in American AI innovation “at a critical moment.” The tech lobby largely echoed Google’s complaints. Chris Mohr, president of the Software and Information Industry Association, said in a Wednesday statement that the DOJ “seeks to punish Google for its continued innovation” and that its proposal “will make the internet less safe for Americans … kneecap AI development and undermine broader U.S. national interests.” Google noted that Tuesday’s DOJ proposal is “the start of a long process.” The company plans to appeal the underlying decision that it has an illegal monopoly, a process that will likely take years to fully resolve. It pledged to respond to the DOJ’s final remedies “as we make our case in court next year.” It’s possible that the DOJ’s antitrust enforcers will ultimately back away from a Google breakup or other more aggressive fixes to its monopoly. Allensworth said many of the DOJ’s asks already “push the envelope in terms of being stronger than what antitrust has, for the last 40 years anyway, imposed in monopolization cases.” And if the agency keeps its foot on the gas, she said, there’s a strong chance that federal judges will reject its more intrusive changes to the company — especially any plans to spin off Android, Chrome or Play. “This I view as a very unlikely remedy for the judge to grant, because breakups are seen as an unusually invasive remedy that would need a strong justification,” Allensworth said. She added that Google’s control over those three products is largely ancillary to this specific case. The DOJ’s antitrust enforcers will also be under new leadership in the White House come January. Jonathan Kanter, head of the agency’s Antitrust Division, would almost certainly step down if Trump wins, and the former president would face significant pressure from orthodox conservatives to replace him with a softer touch. Harris is under her own pressure from tech billionaires — including some bankrolling her presidential campaign — to fire aggressive antitrust enforcers like Khan. “All bets are off if Trump wins,” said Caffarra, adding that it’s also “really unclear” who Harris will pick to lead the DOJ and its antitrust wing. But other experts don’t anticipate a major change once Biden leaves office. In the specific case of Google’s search monopoly, the horse has largely left the barn: the DOJ will have already filed its final remedies by the time a new president takes over, teeing up a lengthy appeals process. Bill Kovacic, a former FTC chair and antitrust professor at George Washington University Law School, said he suspects Trump “will not tamper with” the case, which was initially filed in 2020, toward the end of his administration. “Trump brought the Google search case! That’s his case,” Kovacic said. “He doesn’t like these companies. He has no sympathy for them. So I imagine he would tell his assistant attorney general, ‘Keep up the good work, full speed ahead.’” Despite clamoring from billionaires, Kovacic said Harris is also unlikely to dump Biden’s pugnacious approach to Big Tech’s market power. He noted a large fanbase for antitrust enforcement in Washington and beyond that worries Harris will cave to Silicon Valley, where she started her career. “She would pay a significant price if she were to back off in any way in these big, visible, high-profile cases,” Kovacic said. Despite the many hurdles and open questions, the former FTC chair said Tuesday’s preliminary DOJ proposal is less a high-water mark than a sign of things to come. “It’s going to give confidence to the plaintiffs in the other cases that they can prevail against a formidable, dominant firm in this field,” said Kovacic. “It shows it can be done. You see people scaling the highest mountains, and you think ‘I can climb, too.’” Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

Dozens of demonstrators on Saturday blocked a key road in the city of Brussels, calling on the European Union to end subsidies for oil and gas. Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and a group of Extinction Rebellion activists padlocked their arms to the ground in front of the Rogier metro station, a few kilometers from the European Parliament and European Commission buildings. Quickly surrounded by police, the protesters chanted a chorus of “the oceans are rising and so are we.” Arrests have since been made. “Our politicians have failed us,” said Paolo Destilo, a spokesperson for United for Climate Justice, which helped organize Saturday’s protest. “European leaders’ continued support for the fossil fuel industry raises serious questions about their commitment to effective climate action.” Asked by POLITICO whether Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is a green champion, Thunberg shook her head and replied “no.” Among the demonstrators gathering at a simultaneous demonstration outside the Parliament on the city’s Place du Luxembourg were Commission employees frustrated with the slow progress on climate action. “I worked directly on the trilogues of the environment action program, so I know how tricky it can be to get things done,” said one staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely. “There’s a lot of tools the institutions have now to fight climate change, but since the election there’s been a lot of backtracking,” this staffer said. “It’s now all about competitiveness and the ‘clean industrial deal,’ whatever that means. The urgency has been lost — the Parliament has shifted to the right, the Commission in many ways has shifted to the right — and discussion of the climate has faded into the background.” According to Simone Tagliapietra, an economist and energy expert at Bruegel think tank, “we have seen an incapability of the European governments to phase out subsidies to fossil fuel or at least to make them more targeted.” The bloc now faces an “uphill battle” to revise its Energy Taxation Directive, which effectively provides cash to keep gasoline and diesel prices low, Tagliapietra said. Until the directive is revised, “the European taxation system remains highly conducive to fossil fuels,” he added. Von der Leyen has urged her incoming top team in the next Commission to begin the process of phasing out subsidies for oil and gas. However, a Commission report published last October found the EU is still spending more than €100 billion a year subsidizing fossil fuels, a figure that spiked as a result of the energy crisis following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Others, however, argue that the EU needs to stop simply tinkering with policies and embrace a radically different model, even if it means sacrificing economic growth. “We are saying that technology won’t save us,” said veteran climate activist Sebastian Gonzato, one of the co-founders of Scientists Rebellion Belgium. “We also need to look at production and consumption and we need to radically change our lifestyles. It’s not about getting used to electric vehicles or balancing the electricity grid, it’s really deep structural changed about how we live.”

Today, we proudly announce the launch of a new public institution in Great Britain – the National Energy System Operator (NESO). NESO is built on the strong foundations of the Electricity System Operator, formerly part of the National Grid group. It now stands as an independent, public corporation entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring reliable, clean and affordable energy for all Great Britain. Our responsibilities represent a departure from the traditional approach to energy system planning. We will break down silos and consider all energy vectors to design the networks and markets that Great Britain needs. In this sense, NESO will be responsible for overseeing Great Britain’s electricity and gas networks, planning infrastructure, and exploring emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage. By aligning our efforts with our neighbors, we will deliver efficient, secure and clean energy for all. > Having served as the CEO of EirGrid, the Irish Transmission System Operator, I > understand that the energy transition cannot happen in isolation. > Collaboration with our European partners is essential as we plan and develop > new energy infrastructure. We are committed to working closely with neighboring countries across the Irish, Celtic and North seas, accelerating toward climate targets and minimizing costs for consumers. This spirit of cooperation is vital for both the EU and the UK to navigate the energy transition successfully. In this spirit, I wholeheartedly welcome the UK’s engagement with the North Sea Energy Cooperation (NSEC) forum. NESO eagerly anticipates supporting the UK’s government at the upcoming NSEC forum in Copenhagen as we explore how the North Sea, Europe’s greatest energy resource, can be best used for everyone’s benefit. As the first CEO of this groundbreaking organization, I believe that NESO’s creation is a pivotal move at a critical time. While the progress made so far to decarbonize the British electricity grid is commendable, it alone cannot fulfil Great Britain’s ambition for a clean power system by 2030 and a net-zero economy by 2050. Since the world’s first coal-fired power station was turned on in London in 1882, Great Britain has relied on coal to generate electricity. Yesterday, in a small village nestled in the heart of England, that 142-year chapter came to a close as Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Great Britain’s last coal-fired power station, was powered down for good. Even just a decade ago, coal accounted for over 30% of Great Britain’s electricity generation. Today, renewable sources like wind and solar power have taken its place. Great Britain has emerged as a global leader in decarbonization, steadfast in its commitment to a sustainable future and the journey toward net-zero emissions. As a newly formed independent organization, we now look forward to working with our European partners to ensure we can decarbonize our collective economies and meet our ambitious climate targets. Beyond our commitment to climate goals, NESO plays a crucial role in ensuring energy security. By collaborating with European partners, we can build a secure and resilient European energy system that leverages the vast natural resources across the continent. > In recent years, operational collaboration between electricity and gas system > operators across Europe has proven instrumental in managing energy crises and > ensuring reliable supplies for all citizens. From long-term planning to > minute-by-minute operational dialogue. From long-term planning to minute-by-minute operational dialogue, we worked hand in hand with fellow transmission system operators, ensuring interconnectors enhanced our collective energy security and kept Europe’s lights on. This energy cooperation between Great Britain and Europe is not a recent development. It dates back to 1961 when the first sub-sea electric interconnector connected Great Britain and France. Today, there are nine electric and three gas interconnectors linking Great Britain with its neighbors, and NESO remains committed to working closely with our neighbors as we design and plan the future energy infrastructure. NESO’s creation marks a significant milestone in Great Britain’s energy landscape. With its holistic approach, collaborative mindset and unwavering commitment to energy security, NESO is poised to take the lead in Great Britain’s energy transition and contribute to the global fight against climate change. As Great Britain continues its journey toward clean power by 2030 and a net-zero economy by 2050, NESO reaffirms its commitment to open, collaborative and constructive engagement with our European and international colleagues and partners. In her Political Guidelines, the European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, acknowledged the importance of EU-UK cooperation ‘on issues of shared interest’, including energy. Our secretary of state for energy security, Ed Miliband, and net zero has also held constructive discussions with the executive vice president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, regarding our energy relations, and we look forward to continuing constructive dialogues with European partners to meet our shared vision of a sustainable and just economy. > Today marks the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the annals of the UK > and Europe’s decarbonization journey. Together, we can achieve remarkable > things for a sustainable future.