Speeches

Mr President, ‘responsible fishing’, ‘reasoned agriculture’, ‘eco-responsible choice’: The regulation of environmental labels is fundamental to prevent consumer deception and ensure responsible choices. Too often, products are associated with the prefix ‘bio’ or the word ‘ecological’ without real compliance with standards. This disinformation damages the credibility of the real labels and thus the environment itself. If we want a real green transition – the Green Deal as we decided it together – making false claims is worse than not making them. Consumers are deceived and believe they are acting for the ecological transition in good faith, when in truth they are helping to maintain a system that is dangerous for our health. The directive we are going to vote on tomorrow is a first step towards putting an end to this deception. By requiring rigorous verification of each environmental claim, it will enable consumers to make informed choices and genuinely support environmentally friendly practices. Let us act now to strike a balance between commercial interests and the health of our planet.

Mr President, the agricultural crisis is raging in the European Union, marked by massive demonstrations by farmers demanding an urgent response to their main demand, namely the assurance of a decent income. However, instead of responding to this urgent call, we are about to sign agreements with Chile that propose the exact opposite. These agreements open wide the doors to a massive increase in imports: 9,000 tonnes of pork, 2,000 tonnes of beef, 4,000 tonnes of sheepmeat and 18,000 tonnes of poultry. These quotas, referred to as "limited" by the European Commission, are in addition to the existing quotas recently introduced by the agreements with New Zealand. Together they represent a substantial part of our European production and these productions with unbeatable social costs can only increase the downward pressure on our farmers’ prices. These agreements open the door to the import of products that do not comply with our health standards, by allowing the import of poultry treated with antibiotics and growth promoters banned in France since 2006 and in the European Union since 2022. Unfortunately, the commitments made under these agreements remain non-binding. In Europe, we need many farms. By signing these agreements, we are forcing farmers into a game where, in advance, they are the big losers. Let us reject these agreements with conviction to protect the dignity and livelihood of our farmers.

Madam President, our farmers have expressed a key message: they aspire to live with dignity from their work and refuse to be mere instruments of multinationals interested in their profit alone. Thus, opting for the adoption of NGTs would not only be a betrayal of them, but also a direct threat to the diversity and vitality of our territories. Farmers have established a relationship with our environments and have created unique and diverse crops and food. The introduction of NGTs risks breaking this already weakened link by promoting uniformity orchestrated by external actors disconnected from local realities. These large-scale genetic techniques threaten local seed producers and run counter to farmers’ very desire not to be reduced to mere cogs in the machinery of multinationals. Adopting NGTs means abandoning the vision of territorial agriculture at the service of men, women and food security and autonomy.

Madam President, the farmers' demonstrations and the agricultural crisis in Germany and other parts of Europe resonate with me in Brittany, where our farmers have been struggling for many years. The lessons of recent years are clear: our current trajectory impoverishes farmers and weakens rural areas. Overindustrialisation, excessive concentration of agriculture are not the lasting answers. There is a need to redirect available funds towards key priorities: polyagriculture, support for the ecological transition and agri-environmental and climate measures and, above all, a significant increase in the number of farms. Departures should no longer be an opportunity to expand existing farms, but should facilitate the creation of new farms. We must opt for an asset-based approach and we must regionalise the second pillar of the CAP, because it is at local level that we will take more effective and appropriate decisions. The time has come to abandon policies that have already shown their limits.

Madam President, the agreement between the European Union and New Zealand seems to be a positive step forward. For the first time, binding ecological measures and respect for indigenous peoples are enshrined in this agreement. This is a strong signal. It is undeniable that the European Union was founded on the promise of peace and prosperity. However, recent events underline the need for Europe to become food self-sufficient. To claim that food is a mere good like any other is an illusion. Requiring farmers to produce less to promote polyculture and to produce better to promote peasant agriculture, while simultaneously encouraging food imports, is contradictory. Promoting a diet less focused on animal protein while importing New Zealand sheep and cattle also seems inconsistent. This agreement between the EU and New Zealand should not only replicate an existing business model, but foster an exceptional approach to food. It is not a question of setting aside the entirety of international trade, but of redirecting that trade in favour of the diversity and food autonomy of the territories.

Mr President, the Russian invasion has led millions of people to seek refuge in Europe, and among the Member States of the European Union, Poland has opened its doors to the largest number of refugees. But Poland has become a particularly restrictive environment when it comes to sexual and reproductive health. Women, refugees in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, already weakened by forced exile, have been forced to return temporarily to Ukraine to access basic medical care. The consequences are serious: Anxiety, fear, financial hardship, institutional racism and inadequate health care, which once again hit women harder. These women face serious threats, harassment, intimidation... all in a context where their rights are neglected. Victims of gender-based violence are left without essential services, while Roma and LGBTQI+ refugees face intersectional discrimination. We cannot remain indifferent to the plight of these women, who bear a heavier burden, and we must take steps to support them and guarantee their dignity, well-being and life.