Take action: Say no to deregulation GMO food</h1> <article> <h1>Take action: Say no to deregulation GMO food</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:17:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Protect food and farming from corporate control </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Union is planning a major hand-out to big corporations like Bayer and BASF, that aim to control the food chain even further. What do they intend to do? Scrapping safety and transparency rules for risky new GMOs, and let corporations profit from patented GM crops. </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Genetically modified organisms in my food, on the fields?</strong> Today, EU GMO regulations ensure that all genetically modified organisms are assessed for risks, are labelled, and traceable. Consumers, farmers, and breeders can rely on this to make informed choices about what they eat and grow.</p> <p><strong>This right to transparency and freedom of choice is now under threat. </strong>The European Union is planning a major carve-out from its GMO laws. Most plants engineered using new GM techniques – such as the “gene scissors” CRISPR/Cas – would then be marketed without proper labelling, traceability, or prior risk assessment.</p> <p><strong>New GM crops are always patented</strong>, and this deregulation is likely to increase the concentration of the seed market into the hands of just a few corporations, harming the interests of small- and medium-sized breeders, farmers and consumers. </p> <p><strong>Negotiators of the EU institutions have agreed</strong> on this massive weakening of EU GMO law. In December 2025, EU Member States informally endorsed the agreement.</p> <p><strong>However, the final decision lies with the European Parliament</strong>. Will it agree to this sweeping deregulation? In 2024, Parliament had called for mandatory labelling and traceability for all GMO products and voted in favour of a ban on patented seeds.</p> <p>Let's call on Members of the European Parliament to safeguard GMO-free farming and the labelling of GMO foods, and to stand up against patented crops. </p> <h2 id="strong-strong-take-action-now-strong-strong"><strong>Take action now!</strong></h2> <p><strong>MEPs must not approve the December agreement</strong> without substantial improvements. Please use our email tool to send this demand directly to the parliamentarians.</p> <p>The tool will remain active until the <strong>plenary vote in May</strong>. Just select the country and the MEPs, and send your message! (Please note that the system will only let you send a message once).</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><script src="https://widget.proca.app/d/gmofree_demeter_2026/ceo" async></script></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>CORRECTIV: "The pact with the chemical industry"</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 07:01:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">20.04.2026</div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-author field--type-text field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>CORRECTIV recently </em>published a groundbreaking article shedding light on the reason why the interests of big polluters keep being prioritised over the common interest: our health, right to clean water and food, our environment. The article (original <a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/lobbyismus/2026/02/25/der-pakt-mit-der-chemiebranche/">in German here</a>) was written by Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger and was published on 25 February 2026. In the article, a high-ranking employee of a German chemical company says that there is a tacit pact between chemical companies and German and EU authorities. The insider confirms that the health of the population is "hardly ever discussed" in high-level meetings. Meanwhile, thousands of unknown industrial chemicals are polluting the Rhine and groundwater. This begs the question: why does the chemical industry even have access to decision makers in the first place, given its dark lobby track record?</p> <p><em>CORRECTIV is a media house oriented towards the public good. As an award-winning non-profit newsroom, we shine a spotlight on power and injustices, expose disinformation, and provide arguments and methods for all those who want to participate in shaping their environment.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Tens of thousands of unknown, sometimes toxic, chemicals are floating in the Rhine. Why is industry allowed to discharge them unhindered? A top manager of a major corporation reveals how industry controls politicians.</strong></p> <p>By Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger (original article in German <a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/lobbyismus/2026/02/25/der-pakt-mit-der-chemiebranche/">here</a>). </p> <p>There is a tacit pact between chemical companies and the German and European governments, says a high-ranking employee of a chemical company near Cologne. The man in his mid-forties, who worked for many years in the European Parliament, describes the pact as follows: Brussels MEPs and the Commission know perfectly well that many chemicals from German companies – in plastic products, varnishes, skin creams, cleaning agents, and plasticizers – are harmful to health. "But all those responsible accept this in order to secure Germany and the European Union (EU) as leading chemical production locations." Therefore, the EU – more and more decisively each year – prioritizes the interests of industry: fewer regulations, fewer controls, no new limits. The health of the population? Secondary. It is "hardly ever discussed" at high-level meetings.</p> <p>CORRECTIV has uncovered numerous pieces of evidence for this "pact" in documents, conversations, and draft legislation. Earlier this month, CORRECTIV reported that thousands of unknown industrial substances are polluting the Rhine and groundwater. Of the approximately 100,000 substances used in the EU, only about 500 have been sufficiently researched. The rest are allowed to flow into the Rhine almost unchecked – and end up in the drinking water of millions of people. Experts are alarmed and have long been urging legal measures to combat the flood of unknown and ever-evolving chemicals. So far, such measures are lacking.</p> <p><em>Chemicals used in the EU (~100,000) </em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>In grey: Extensively studied (~500) – in red: Little to no research (~99,500) </em></p> <p><em>Source: European Environment Agency </em></p> <p><strong>Scientists: Chemicals are the greatest danger to humanity</strong></p> <p>Chemicals are considered by international scientists to be the greatest threat to humanity. Yet the EU Commission is ignoring these substances: According to the European Environment Agency, unknown substances do not have to be recorded in any database. However, in recent years, many previously unresearched substances have alarmed doctors, experts, and the public, such as PFAS. Barely noticed 20 years ago, this chemical is now considered carcinogenic and can also impair metabolism, hormone balance, reproduction, and the immune system. A limit has been in place since this year – but only for drinking water.</p> <p>The EU is very well aware of the dangers of chemicals: almost every second cancer case It is preventable and is promoted by chemicals such as pesticides, writes the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission in Brussels. According to the EU's "Zero Pollution Plan," pollution causes one in eight deaths. But the zero-pollution plan is stalled. So too is a reform of the European chemicals regulation REACH, once a globally acclaimed achievement: it has been in force since 2007 – with thousands of new chemicals introduced every year, it is long outdated. The reform has been postponed repeatedly for years, and many experts now believe it will never happen. This is primarily because Cefic, the powerful lobby group for the European chemical industry, no longer supports the reform. Even before the first version of REACH was published, its then-head said it would "deindustrialize Europe." That was in 2003.</p> <p><strong>"I wouldn't even call it lobbying anymore. More like: giving orders"</strong></p> <p>“Cefic is financially strong and very influential,” says the insider from the Rhineland-based chemical company. Strategic meetings with dozens of industry representatives take place almost daily. Last year alone, representatives of the association met with high-ranking members of the European Commission 264 times. The association is located in a glass skyscraper near the European Parliament. According to the organization Lobbycontrol, its budget exceeds ten million euros annually. "The access is direct and uncomplicated – I wouldn't even call it lobbying anymore. It seems more like: industry is giving orders to politicians," says the insider. There's been a huge step backwards; the supposed rescue of industry takes precedence over everything else.</p> <p>Top politicians are now openly courting the chemical industry. "Give us your Ten Commandments," Belgium's conservative Prime Minister Bart De Wever recently demanded of the industry's CEOs. When Cefic invited them to a high-level meeting in Antwerp at the beginning of February, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attended. "The industry itself was surprised by the high-ranking state guests and the many promises. A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable," said the insider. In response to a CORRECTIV inquiry, Cefic stated that its task is to provide politicians with "technical and practical information." The aim is to explain how the industry can remain in Europe while simultaneously protecting public health in a "realistic way."</p> <p>Chancellor Merz also advocated for deregulation in Antwerp – including fewer regulations for chemicals. The Christian Democrats pent many years of his life as a lawyer for DAX-listed companies and previously even worked directly for the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). Research by CORRECTIV shows that Merz acted as a lawyer for BASF, Europe's largest chemical company, at least three times. The call for a "moratorium on burdens" for companies, the fight against the "bureaucratic monster," and a reduction in "reporting requirements" for businesses – Merz and his former employer, the chemical industry, agree remarkably often and verbatim. In Antwerp, Merz promised: "We must deregulate every sector." This means fewer regulations; it would also apply to wastewater and unknown pollutants. In response to a CORRECTIV inquiry, the VCI stated that it does not, as a matter of principle, comment on the extent to which individual political decision-makers support its positions.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>(Merz's ties to BASF, Supervisory Board, former member of the Executive Board, speaker, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Senior consultant at; Blackrock, the world's largest wealth management firm, Mayer Brown, international business law firm, BASF, the world's largest chemical company, United Europe, Industry Association, VCI, German Chemical Industry Association. Source: Correctiv)</em></p> <p><strong>What would happen if health came </strong>fi<strong>rst?</strong></p> <p>Environmental organizations and health initiatives, on the other hand, have less power in Brussels. For example, when Commission President von der Leyen convened a strategy meeting on the future of European chemicals policy in May 2025, only three representatives from civil society sat opposite 15 industry representatives. Yet, scientifically, it is clear what needs to happen: companies must first prove — as with pharmaceuticals — that their micropollutants, including those previously unknown, are not dangerous to humans, animals, or plants. Only then should they be allowed to use them. "We need to regulate entire groups of substances — for example, bisphenol A was banned in baby products, but its alternatives have similar or even stronger effects," says Ana Zenclussen, an environmental immunologist from Leipzig.</p> <p>Green MEP Jutta Paulus, a trained pharmacist and former head of a pollutant analysis laboratory, wants to go even further. She demands a ban on all substances in a group that are potentially harmful to health, for example, carcinogenic. But that is currently not feasible: "In Brussels, there is an unholy alliance of conservatives and right-wing extremists that is sacrificing health protection to profit interests,” Paulus criticizes.</p> <p>The chemical industry is resisting stricter regulations – so far successfully. A reversal of the burden of proof would "create considerable uncertainty for research, development, and production," says the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). The European chemical industry association Cefic rejects such a regulation in almost identical terms. An insider from a chemical company in the Rhineland puts it more drastically: "If health were the top priority, some companies would face an existential crisis." A ban on all demonstrably dangerous substances like BPA would force many products off the market. Products that many consumers unknowingly use: The "pact" is in place without the public being aware of it.</p> <p><strong>Potential Harmful Substances in Everyday Products</strong></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The insider from the chemical industry has long observed how the Brussels administration appoints people with close ties to the industry. "For decades, the conservative EPP group has dominated Parliament and the Commission – and has placed its people there who are closely connected to the chemical industry."</p> <p>This can be substantiated. The Policy Department is supposed to produce independent reports to inform the Commission. In one of its most recent reports, it emphasizes that the controversial perpetual chemicals PFAS are very important for European industry and that a ban would result in significant economic losses. This report was sharply criticized for its flawed content by the international expert committee on PFAS, the Global PFAS Science Panel.</p> <p>The criticized document was published by a former staffer of CDU member of parliament Hildegard Bentele, who in turn sits on the European Committee for Industrial Research (ITRE), which had requested the report. Bentele is known for opposing restrictions on the chemical industry. Like the chemical industry association, she also speaks of "bureaucratic burnout." In response to an inquiry from CORRECTIV, Bentele writes that the accusation that she prioritizes industry interests over public health has not yet been leveled against her. Bentele emphasizes that she considers the issues of water supply, water management, water quality, and water quantity to be very important and is actively involved in discussion on these topics.</p> <p><strong>The Netherlands is setting an example and protecting its population</strong></p> <p>It is possible to demand at least minimal transparency without bankrupting the corporations. The Netherlands has required its largest chemical park, Chemelot, to identify all individual substances discharged into its wastewater. In fact, the neighboring country is already suffering from the wastewater of German industry. The Rhine water requires increasingly complex purification processes before it can be used as drinking water.</p> <p>Even existing laws are apparently not being applied sufficiently. "We have found that Germany is applying its own interpretation of the European Industrial Emissions Directive," Gerard Stroomberg, director of RIWA-Rijn, the association of Dutch water suppliers, told CORRECTIV.</p> <p>This interpretation primarily benefits the German chemical industry. Stroomberg cites the persistent chemical PFAS as an example. In Germany, there are currently no legally binding wastewater limits for these substances; only guideline values exist. The Cologne district government explains on its website: "Due to a lack of legal framework, reduction measures can currently only be implemented through dialogue with the operators." In short, water suppliers can only politely request that industry discharge less hazardous substances – they cannot force them to do so.</p> <p><strong>EU Commission criticizes Germany</strong></p> <p>This already drew criticism during the last legislative period. In a report from February 2025, the EU Commission states that it remains unclear whether Germany is working to reduce pollution. It calls on the German government to establish binding emission limits for PFAS-containing wastewater discharged into the Rhine.</p> <p>The pact with the chemical industry could prove costly for all Europeans – both financially and in terms of their health. The costs of hospital stays, medications, and doctor visits due to phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides, and PFAS could reach up to 2.2 trillion US dollars. The amount is astronomical. And that doesn't even take into account the effects of unknown pollutants.</p> <p><em>Research: Annika Joeres, Gesa Steeger, Finn Schöneck </em><br><em>Graphics: Carolin Lewandowska</em><br><em>Fact-checking and editing: Katarina Huth</em></p> <p>This article is part of a series on chemical pollution by <em>CORRECTIV</em> in 2026. Also see:</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/kampf-um-wasser/2026/02/03/wie-die-industrie-den-rhein-mit-unbekannten-stoffen-verschmutzt/">Das unsichtbare Gift im Rhein</a> - 3 February 2026</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/kampf-um-wasser/2026/02/13/chemiecocktail-aus-dem-rhein-koennte-in-bergbauseen-landen/">Chemiecocktail aus dem Rhein könnte in Bergbauseen landen</a> - 13 February 2026</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/wirtschaft/2026/04/14/in-der-schoenheitsfalle-giftige-kosmetik/">In der Schönheitsfalle: Giftige Kosmetik</a> - 14 April 2026</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">15.03.2023</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-romance-politicians-basf" hreflang="en">Chemical romance: how politicians fell for BASF</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf" hreflang="en">Crying wolf pays off for chemicals industry</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Copy, paste, govern</h1> <p>Bram Vranken — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Microsoft ghostwrote EU policy that keeps data centres' energy use secret </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">15.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission’s policy on data centres keeps information on individual centres' energy and water use under wraps. Research by Corporate and Europe Observatory and AlgorithmWatch, and published by Investigate Europe and media across Europe, reveals the Commission copied and pasted an amendment suggested by Microsoft and the lobby group Digital Europe. The aim? In the face of growing resistance, to prevent NGOs from obtaining information on energy-hungry data centres.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Since the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025 – attended by dozens of government leaders and business executives – the European Commission is increasingly focusing on ‘winning the global AI race’. Soon after the summit, it launched its <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ai-continent-action-plan">AI Continent Action Plan</a> which aims to triple Europe’s data centre capacity by 2030.</p> <p>Fuelled by the AI boom, the Commission <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/10/eu-proposes-exempting-ai-gigafactories-from-environmental-assessments">plans to relax permitting rules</a> to make it easier for tech companies to build data centres, but their rapid expansion is already putting <a href="https://algorithmwatch.org/en/ireland-data-center-crisis-eu-sovereignty/">immense</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/09/big-tech-datacentres-water">pressure</a> on energy and water supplies and electricity grids, and <a href="https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Data-centres-report.pdf">threatens the EU’s climate goals.</a></p> <p>For example in the Dublin area, data centres already consume an extraordinary <a href="https://archive.is/20250219024847/https:/www.independent.ie/news/data-centres-now-using-half-of-all-electricity-in-dublin-and-meath/a1415943438.html">50 per cent of the electricity supply</a>, putting immense pressure on prices and grids for the rest of society. The energy demands are so high that there are now long waiting times for connection to the grid, so big tech data centres are increasingly being powered by on-site fossil gas generators. With Big Tech companies pouring hundreds of billions of euros into AI data centres, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that data centre electricity consumption will grow by <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai">15 per cent per year</a> — more than four times faster than consumption from other sectors.</p> <p>The EU is trying to address this rising energy demand through the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), which obliges tech companies to transparency on the power demand of data centres. However, new research by Corporate Europe Observatory and AlgorithmWatch shows that Microsoft played a key role in drafting a crucial article that largely makes this obligation an empty shell.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Data centres’ energy use? Not your business</strong></p> <p>The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) – passed in 2023 as part of the Green Deal – aims to improve energy efficiency across the EU. While the directive covers energy use across policy areas, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023L1791">Article 12</a> relates specifically to data centres. It aims to create minimum transparency requirements regarding energy consumption, water usage, and the use of renewable energy. In the face of <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/02/18/a-milestone-achievement-in-our-journey-to-carbon-negative/">greenwashing</a> from the tech industry, increased transparency could help to dispel <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2025/04/22/ai-energy-demand-can-keep-fossil-fuels-alive-tech-backers-promise-worlds-two-biggest-oil-producers/">baseless claims</a> made by companies and document the local impact of the global AI boom.</p> <p>But while the Energy Efficiency Directive makes it clear that transparency is the standard, it leaves a crucial loophole by exempting information that is covered by trade and business secrets. A loophole that Big Tech was able to exploit.</p> <p>In 2024 the EU Commission began drafting a '<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401364">Delegated Act on the rating scheme for data centres</a>' to implement Article 12 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">Microsoft</a> and the lobby organisation <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451112_en">DigitalEurope</a> submitted position papers to the Commission. In doing so, they closely coordinated with each other to lobby for the transparency requirements set out in the EED to be significantly weakened, and for the scope of trade and business secrets to be broadened to cover all data on individual data centres. Information was only to be made available at an aggregate level. In effect, this makes it impossible to know how much energy a specific data centre would use, making it significantly harder to document the real-world consequences of building more data centres and their environmental impact.</p> <p>It's important to note that the vast energy requirements of data centres are creating political backlash. Resistance campaigns are increasing, from locals objecting to skyrocketing electricity bills in <a href="https://www.friendsoftheearth.ie/news/data-centre-industry-in-denial-about-their-climate-impacts/">Ireland</a>, to communities facing water scarcity in <a href="https://tunubesecamirio.com/">Spain</a>. In the United States, grassroots groups have substantially slowed down the data centre rush. According to one <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/business/economy/ai-data-centers-construction-local-opposition.html">estimate</a>, at least $156 billion across 48 projects were blocked or stalled in 2025. While Europe is still in the early stages of the data centre build out, Big Tech firms – who have staked billions on AI – have a key interest in creating roadblocks for this kind of growing opposition.</p> <p>With this in mind, the reasons stated by Microsoft and DigitalEurope for blocking information on data centre energy usage are deeply troubling. Microsoft warned the Commission in its <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">submission</a> that raw data on individual data centres could be released in response to access-to-information requests from NGOs, including those relating to the energy use of data centres.</p> <p>For instance, DigitalEurope <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">writes</a> that “storing this data within the Commission’s database raises concerns about potential reactive data publication in response to access requests from competitors and NGOs under existing transparency frameworks”.</p> <p>Microsoft pushed the Commission to go even further by restricting access not just to EU-level information, but also by making it impossible to access this data at member state level. In its <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">submission</a>, DigitalEurope adds that confidentiality requirements in the Energy Efficiency Directive are left unclear, and that the Delegated Act should ensure that information about specific metrics is “protected” from potential disclosure.</p> <p>While it is unsurprising that Big Tech companies are uneasy with the prospect of having to reveal data centres’ staggering water usage and energy consumption, the extent to which the Commission subsequently bought into these arguments is shocking.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Microsoft, the EU Commission’s ghost-writer</strong></p> <p>Both Microsoft and DigitalEurope proposed identical amendments to the Commission regarding changes to the Delegated Act, with the aim of classifying all information on individual data centres as confidential and preventing its disclosure, even when requested under the EU’s Access to Documents Regulation or the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees access to environmental data.</p> <p>Alarmingly, the Commission simply copied and pasted these amendments into the Delegated Act. Recital 12 and Article 5.5 are essentially plagiarised from Big Tech lobbying documents – a particularly egregious and shocking example of corporate influence.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Although a Delegated Act is not supposed to contradict the legislation it implements, this appears to be the case in this situation. While the Energy Efficiency Directive aims to make all information on data centres publicly available if it is larger than 500 kW, <em>unless</em> specific information falls under trade, business secrets, or confidentiality, the Delegated Act keeps <em>all</em> information on the key performance indicators of individual data centres under wraps.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In April 2026, the Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16035-Energy-efficiency-rating-scheme-for-data-centres-in-Europe_en">drafted a new Delegated Act</a> to further implement rules on data centres and asked for feedback from stakeholders. However, in the draft, the Microsoft amendment is largely retained, which would furhter entrench secrecy in the EU’s legal framework on data centres.</p> <p>Problematically, Big Tech firms are also capitalising on their win at the EU level to call for diminished transparency within member states, too. In Germany, <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-und-klima/energieeffizienzgesetz-auffaellige-parallelen-zu-lobby-papieren-von-big-tech-124879/">research</a> from LobbyControl and Campact shows that <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/hinweise-zum-urheberrecht?documentUrl=/media/c8/55/506728/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2503130016.pdf">Microsoft</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2503310321">Google</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/regelungsvorhabensuche/RV0008558/164441">Amazon</a> and the German digital lobby organisation <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2507100026">Bitkom</a> (whose EU lobby office is located in the same building as DigitalEurope), have been lobbying to classify information on individual data centres as a business secret by making explicit reference to “harmonisation” with the EU legislative framework.</p> <p>As Big Tech companies are increasing their spending on lobbying and marketing in the face of mounting anger and resistance in opposition to the social and environmental costs of the AI boom, demands for transparency are multiplying. For instance, in the USA Democratic senators are <a href="https://archive.is/20260326121207/https:/www.wired.com/story/senators-demand-to-know-how-much-energy-data-centers-use/">demanding</a> for electricity disclosures of data centres. More recently, <a href="https://archive.ph/3HkzO#selection-1480.0-1480.1">dozens of investors</a> have called for site-level data on water and energy use.</p> <p>The EU Commission, however, has granted Big Tech an early win: crucial information on individual data centres’ energy use, and their environmental and climate impact will be kept secret – despite the underlying directive explicitly calling for their publication. As the Commission is set to put the new ‘updated’ Delegated Act in force soon, the conclusion should be clear: the Commission has to redo its homework and delete the copy-pasted Microsoft amendment.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="DigitalEurope position paper delegated act.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/DigitalEurope%20position%20paper%20delegated%20act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DigitalEurope position paper delegated act.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Microsoft position paper delegated act.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Microsoft%20position%20paper%20delegated%20act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Microsoft position paper delegated act.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Delegated Act on a rating scheme for data centres.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Delegated%20Act%20on%20a%20rating%20scheme%20for%20data%20centres.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Delegated Act on a rating scheme for data centres.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Free lobby tour on the EU's deregulation frenzy</h1> <p>Joana — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:01:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm</strong>!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm</strong>!</p> <p>We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it. <br><br>Sign in at: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=10887&qid=1802608">ceo@corporateeurope.org</a> (until the day before at 5pm)</p> <p>Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours</p> <p>Since 1997 we at Corporate Europe Observatory have investigated, revealed and campaigned on the massive power enjoyed by big business lobbyists in the EU. In this lobby tour, we will address case-studies showing how corporate capture has stood in the way of the public good and has influenced and even steered decision-making processes at the European-level, on the topic of deregulation. We will visit <em>in loco</em> the lobby of the offices of these ‘barons’ to the EU bubble and maybe if we’re luck we may even spot some of them!</p> <p>Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/support-ceo">Donations to support our work</a> are very welcome.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>EP vote to deregulate new GMOs (NGTs)</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:08:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Biotech lobby pushes false solutions for patent problem </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 14 April 2026</strong> - On 18 May the European Parliament is expected to vote on a new law that would exempt food plants obtained from new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) from existing GMO rules. The deregulation of NGTs will undermine food safety standards and consumers' right to choose, and will also likely lead to further concentration in the seed sector through the patenting of food crops.</p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>A <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield"><strong>new article</strong></a><strong> by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and GMWatch</strong> shows that industry lobby groups try to allay concerns about the impact of patented crops with very shallow, if not misleading arguments. A new survey shows that by far <strong>most EU citizens oppose patents</strong> on plants and animals.</p> <p>Lobby documents obtained from the European Commission <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield">show that</a>:</p> <ul> <li>Industry lobby groups Euroseeds and CropLife Europe, representing biotech multinationals like Bayer and Syngenta, <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">underplay the problems</a> linked to patents and propose inadequate ‘solutions’. For instance, the voluntary licensing platforms industry has set up do not provide a solution to increased dependence for small- and medium-sized breeding companies, nor to increased concentration in the seed sector. <br><br> </li> <li>Farm lobby Copa-Cogeca <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/14%20Letter%20from%20Copa%20Cogeca%20on%20new%20genomic%20techniques%20NGTs%20and%20patent%20protection.pdf">issued strong warnings against patents</a>, but later went silent on the issue. Other farm groups like Deutsche Bauern Verband and ECVC remain <a href="https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-08-Patents-on-GMOs-NGTs-ECVC-Briefing-final-version-EN-.pdf">vocal</a> about their <a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">objections</a> to patents.</li> </ul> <p>In the negotiations that were finalised last December, the Parliament’s rapporteur failed to uphold the Parliament’s position, which demanded mandatory consumer labelling <em>and </em>did not allow patents for NGTs that would be deregulated. The provisions on patents that are included in the current text such as the setting up of an expert group are insufficient to protect farmers’ and breeders’ interests.</p> <p>In addition, today the coalition <em>No Patents on Seeds!</em> published a <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/survey">representative survey</a> in five EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Poland). The results are clear: Around <strong>80 percent of the citizens reject patents</strong> on living organisms such as plants or animals. <br><br><strong>Nina Holland, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory</strong>, said: <em>“The only ones profiting from scrapping safety and labeling rules and from patents are the few big seed corporations like Bayer and Syngenta. The Members of the European Parliament have a final chance to protect the interests of consumers, farmers and SME breeding companies”.</em></p> <p><strong>Claire Robinson, co-director of GMWatch</strong>, said: <em>“The deregulation proposal represents a dangerous grab for power over our seeds and food supply. Decades of experience show that the big agribusiness companies that dominate the patent landscape for new GMOs serve only their own interests and are eager to hound farmers and breeders with allegations of patent infringement. The Parliament must stand up for the people and for a truly sustainable system and reject the proposal in its current form.”</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory:<br><a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a> ; +32 466 294420</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield">Please find the article here</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/survey">The survey results can be found here</a></li> <li><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">More background to biotech industry lobby campaign can be found in this CEO report</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield" hreflang="en">Biotech lobby groups are set to trap farmers and breeders in patent minefield</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Biotech lobby groups are set to trap farmers and breeders in patent minefield</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 20:46:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Deregulation of new GM crops will increase seed market concentration, undermine resilience of the food system </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Industry lobby documents reveal a fierce ongoing battle on patented seeds and agricultural crops. A new EU law that would scrap any safety or labeling rules for a class of new GM crops (called NGTs), is in its final stages. As all GM crops are covered by patents, this will negatively impact the way our food is produced – meaning more market power in the hands of just a handful of corporations, less choice in seeds for farmers and more risk of being sued, and restricted access to plant genetic material for smaller plant breeders. This raises strong concerns, as our food security depends on the availability of diverse and locally adapted seeds. </em></p> <p><em>Members of the European Parliament in 2024 supported measures to curb patents for NGT seeds and crops, but this crucial demand was lost in the negotiations between the EU institutions. In May the Parliament will have a final opportunity to reinstate this demand.</em><br><br>A French translation of this article was done by Inf'OGM and <a href="https://infogm.org/les-groupes-de-pression-des-biotechs-prets-a-pieger-les-agriculteurs-et-les-obtenteurs-dans-un-champ-de-mines-de-brevets/">can be found here</a>.</p> <p>Photo: free image by Freepik</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>For over a decade, the biotech industry has been <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">waging a lobby battle</a> with the aim to dismantle the EU GMO safety and transparency rules. While the European Commission is currently busy rolling back health, environmental and social standards through numerous Omnibus proposals, this deregulation proposal (COM/2023/411) of the EU GMO law has been in preparation for several years. The Commission’s proposal would mean that new genetically modified NGT crops would enter the market without any safety checks, consumer labelling, monitoring or liability rules. <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/">It would also mean</a> that independent seed breeders and farmers would be left in the dark about patents, have less choice of seeds and crops, and face higher costs.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a></p> <p>In March 2025, under the Polish Presidency, EU countries agreed to a position implying a far-reaching deregulation. Up until that point, Poland had vehemently opposed patented crops in Europe’s fields. But the proposal it put forward was void of any meaningful action regarding patents – only mentioning a voluntary disclosure of patent information on a GM crop, unverified by any authority. <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=gaelle.cau@foeeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2Fgreen-economy%2Fareabaa9a3/1/01020195933e2b0a-5c3bf459-aa45-4299-8ee2-6f398ddf80a9-000000/XVQ19RbR0i0q20DTddd5wqmT658=417">An investigation published in EUobserver</a> exposed the pressure that had been put on Poland.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> Big biotech multinationals tried to convince Polish seed companies to join their patent platform. </p> <p>The European Parliament position, on the other hand, supported mandatory labelling, as well as a ban on patents, for NGT crops and products. However, the European Parliament’s rapporteur failed to uphold these key demands in the subsequent negotiations between with the Council and the Commission. </p> <p>Another important issue was the inclusion of some mandatory sustainability criteria as a condition for new GM crops to reach the market without risk assessment. Indeed, the technology’s promised contribution to sustainability had been industry’s argument all along to justify deregulation. But very little was left of this demand either (see box below).</p> <p>Now, in the final phase of decision making, with a plenary vote foreseen for 18 May, MEPs will have to make up their mind: stand up for a ban on patented plants and foods and for consumer choice – or abandon the rights of farmers, breeders, and consumers.</p> <p>The European Commission has released a cache of lobbying documents on the NGT deregulation proposal in response to an access to information request from Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). </p> <p>The documents show in particular </p> <ul> <li>How farm lobby Copa-Cogeca in a 2025 letter to the EU institutions clearly spelled out the disadvantages of patented food crops for farmers. However, later in the year, the group called for the new deregulation law to pass and stayed silent on the unresolved patent issue, leaving plant breeders and farmers at the mercy of patent infringement allegations by patent owning companies.</li> <li>How the pesticide and biotech industry lobby group CropLife Europe actively tried to allay widespread concerns about the increase in patented crops in the marketplace that would be triggered by the proposed deregulation of NGT plants. </li> </ul> <p><strong>Patents a sticking point</strong></p> <p>The patents issue has proven a sticking point for the European Parliament,<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[3]</a> EU Member States, farmers,<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[4]</a> and plant breeders.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> Farmers worry that they will be sued for patent infringement if their crops are alleged to contain patented NGT genetic material, whether resulting from contamination by untraceable patented NGT plants or from native genes or genetic material derived from traditional, non-patentable breeding. Plant breeders are concerned that NGT deregulation will usher in a wave of patented NGT plants that will severely restrict access to valuable non-GMO plant genetic material to use in their breeding programmes.</p> <p>Many organisations defending food safety, the environment, farmers’ rights, and science (including farmers organisation Via Campesina, IFOAM Organics Europe, the European non-GM food sector organisation ENGA, foodwatch, Friends of the Earth Europe, and scientist organisation ENSSER) have <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf">repeatedly spoken out</a> against the NGT deregulation and oppose the increasing trend of patents on NGT plants extending to plants produced from conventional breeding.<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6">[6]</a> Also, a new, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11805&qid=1932591">representative survey</a> held in five EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Poland) show that 80 percent of the citizens reject patents on living organisms such as plants or animals.</p> <p>This is a growing problem. Patents affecting over 1000 conventionally bred plant varieties have been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), contradicting its own rules.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7">[7]</a> Patents are granted that claim traits obtained by genetic engineering techniques like gene editing, but also include the same traits obtained by conventional breeding. By law, patents should only cover genetic engineering and not conventional breeding. Indeed, EU law bans patents on conventional breeding, but as reported by the coalition No Patents on Seeds!, the EPO continues to ignore this provision.<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8">[8]</a> </p> <p>Recently a patent was granted on tomatoes resistant to a plant virus, a trait found in wild tomatoes from Peru, to the Dutch seed company Rijk Zwaan. This patent appears to be unlawful, as natural genes cannot be considered inventions. These and other patent applications <a href="https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/">hinder breeding programmes</a>, such as that of the Dutch organic seed company De Bolster, which is also working to develop tomatoes resistant to this virus.<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9">[9]</a></p> <p>Other examples of recently granted patents, the scope of which can extend to naturally occuring genes, include maize, spinach, tomatoes and lettuce.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10">[10]</a> This trend would escalate with any deregulation of NGTs, because like all GM technologies and products, NGTs and the products made from them are patented. </p> <p>Phillip Howard, food system expert at Michigan University, <a href="https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb">explained in the Dutch magazine De Groene</a> that the seed and pesticide corporations like Bayer have adopted a cartel-like strategy by building several patented traits into seeds, which leads to “a reduced number of available varieties for farmers, pushes them to buy more expensive ones, and where possible link[ing] those seeds to their own pesticide products.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11">[11]</a> The result is a dangerous dependence on just a few companies by farmers, which poses a significant risk to the food system as a whole. </p> <p>Eight farmers’ associations, the plant breeders association, rural organisations and the organic sector in Germany <a href="https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd">said in a joint statement</a> that unrestricted access to biological material for plant breeding is essential to “guarantee the range of varieties in a large number of crops for sustainable agriculture that takes account of ecological and economic challenges” and that this can only be achieved “if the plant variety protection system is not undermined by the patent system”.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12">[12]</a></p> <p>The Secretary-General of the German Farmers’ Association DBV, Stefanie Sabet, <a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">warned in response to the negotiation outcome in December 2025</a> that the potential introduction of patents crosses a clear red line for the organisation. “Patents must not be allowed to block progress in plant breeding progress. If key plant characteristics are monopolised by individual companies, our farmers and small and medium-sized breeders will lose access to important genetic material,” she said.<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13">[13]</a></p> <p>For these reasons, in the trilogue discussions on the NGT deregulation proposal, the European Parliament voted for measures to curb patents on (deregulated) NGT plants and to restrict their scope.<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14">[14]</a> However, by the final negotiation outcome from December 2025, the Parliament’s demands had been overruled and ignored.<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15">[15]</a> Therefore the patent issue is still causing concern for numerous actors who want to ensure that the plant breeding and agricultural sectors are protected from the chilling effect of lawsuits brought over the use of patented genetic material. </p> <p>Their objections are intensified by the consolidation of NGT patent ownership in the hands of a few powerful players with deep pockets. The patent landscape for “new GMOs” made with gene editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas is dominated by the big seed firms, notably Corteva and Bayer, and some academic institutions.<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16">[16]</a> Other big European patent holders include the multinational companies KWS Saat and Limagrain/Vilmorin.<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17">[17]</a> These corporations want to have it both ways: on one hand they claim that these new GM crops are “equivalent” to conventionally bred crops, so there is no need for risk assessment; but at the same time they base their patent applications on claims that they are very different and a genetic engineering “invention”.</p> <p><strong>Copa-Cogeca understands the patent threat – but goes silent on the issue</strong></p> <p>In a <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf">letter of May 2025</a>, Copa-Cogeca strongly opposed patents on NGT crops. Uncompromising in its warning, Copa-Cogeca stated: “It is essential that the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission agree without delay on effective legal reforms that clearly limit the scope of patent protection in plant breeding. Only through such targeted legislative action can we preserve fair competition, foster agricultural innovation, and secure the future of sustainable food production in the EU.” </p> <p>Copa-Cogeca said it supported the Community Plant Variety Right (CPVR) system, which protects breeders’ intellectual property rights to plant varieties they develop while providing a breeders’ exemption, which allows protected varieties to be used freely in further breeding, on condition, however, that they remove the patented genes. CPVR also provides an exemption for farmers, who may use their own farm-saved seed on condition that they pay licence fees to the breeders.<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18">[18]</a> </p> <p>In a <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf">meeting</a> in July 2025, Copa-Cogeca reiterated its concerns “about the potential impact of the patenting of NGT plants on the future diversity and affordability of seeds for farmers”, while agreeing with the scrapping of biosafety rules for these crops.<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19">[19]</a> However, in September 2025, without any meaningful solution to the patent issue being written into the deregulation proposal, Copa-Cogeca wrote again to the Commission, reiterating that the “legislation on NGTs must be adopted without delay”. The letter did not mention patents at all.<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20">[20]</a> Copa-Cogeca called again for “swift conclusions on the negotiations” in a <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf">meeting</a> on 3 November with DG SANTE.<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21">[21]</a></p> <p>Copa Cogeca’s ambiguous position was also evidenced in an earlier message to politicians claiming the issue of patents is separate from the issue of NGT deregulation.<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22">[22]</a> It thus appears that Copa-Cogeca’s lobbying abandons farmers and breeders to an increasingly concentrated seed market and a legal minefield of patent infringement claims.</p> <p><strong>CropLife Europe and Euroseeds want to tie farmers and breeders to patents and and replace public law with private licensing platforms </strong></p> <p>The pesticide and biotech industry lobby group CropLife Europe <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">wrote</a> to the Commission in October 2025, seeking to allay fears over the impact of patents on farmers and breeders.<a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23">[23]</a> However, CropLife’s arguments are largely irrelevant to the real concerns being raised.</p> <p>With its letter, Croplife Europe sent the Commission <a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/">a report it commissioned</a> that assesses the current intellectual property landscape in the EU and its implications for various stakeholders.<a href="#_edn24" name="_ednref24">[24]</a> In its report, CropLife seeks both to calm fears over the impact of patents on farmers and breeders and to defend the patent model. It also attached <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf">a letter signed by 32 companies</a>, including Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta and Limagrain, “underscoring the importance of robust IP [intellectual property] protection in fostering agricultural innovation”.<a href="#_edn25" name="_ednref25">[25]</a> </p> <p>Here are the key arguments from the biotech industry and why they are flawed:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Voluntary licensing platforms: </strong>Large seed companies and lobby groups Euroseeds and Croplife Europe held various <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf">meetings</a> with the Commission throughout 2025 advocating for licensing platforms that would ensure “plant patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in order to facilitate breeders’ access to patented plant material.”<a href="#_edn26" name="_ednref26">[26]</a> In October 2025 Euroseeds and its members Bayer, Limagrain, Corteva, Syngenta, and KWS Saat had a meeting with Irene Sánchez, head of unit at DG SANTE, in which they claimed their industry had a “commitment to addressing the smaller breeders’ and farmers’ concerns regarding patents via the established patent licensing platforms”.<a href="#_edn27" name="_ednref27">[27]</a> Croplife in the same month wrote to the Commission regarding these “existing initiatives to enhance the transparency and access to patented plant-related inventions, such as the PINTO database, the ILP Vegetables and the Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP)”.<a href="#_edn28" name="_ednref28">[28]</a> <br><br>However, as <a href="https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf">confirmed by a report</a> by the consultancy Technopolis for the European Commission, voluntary platforms and transparency are not enough to palliate the detrimental effects of patents on plant innovation in general. Voluntary initiatives such as ALCP are especially flagged as being potentially deterrent for innovation as they are voluntary and incomplete, and cannot substitute for clear legal certainty and limitations on patents that impact plant breeding and agricultural production.<a href="#_edn29" name="_ednref29">[29]</a> Under the <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188">ACLP</a> (founded by Corteva, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta and Limagrain), for instance, the extent of access to patent-protected traits is defined by themselves under private law.<a href="#_edn30" name="_ednref30">[30]</a> CropLife’s claim that licence rates will be “fair” does not provide any guarantees that that will be the case. <br> </li> <li><strong>Farmers’ seed saving rights: </strong>CropLife claims that farmers’ seed saving rights are maintained. It states: “In the EU, farmers growing fodder plants, oilseeds, cereals or potatoes retain the right to save and reuse seeds, even when those varieties contain patented traits. However, this right, established in Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights,<a href="#_edn31" name="_ednref31">[31]</a> applies only to these crops, not all food crops. Also, the right requires payment to the intellectual property holder, albeit with exceptions for very small farmers (such as an arable farmer producing cereals on no more than 15 hectares); and the seeds must be produced on the farmer’s own holding and used on that same holding – selling or exchanging saved seeds is prohibited.<br> </li> <li><strong>Industry suing farmers:</strong> CropLife claims that its members won’t sue farmers for inadvertent patent infringement: “We wish to reiterate our members’ commitment not to enforce their patents against farmers for unintentional minor presence of a patented trait in their field.” However, unless and until it is formally incorporated into European or national law, this declaration has no legal force, including for CropLife members; it cannot be extended to non-members or regarded as valid indefinitely. There are numerous documented cases of biotech companies suing farmers for alleged patent infringement when the companies’ patented genes have turned up in the farmers’ fields.<a href="#_edn32" name="_ednref32">[32]</a> In addition, the terms “unintentional” and “minor”, when applied to the presence of patented genes in a farmer’s crop, are open to interpretation by biotech companies and their lawyers. To protect farmers and breeders from allegations of patent infringement, detection methods for all GM NGT plants, which developers will certainly have in-house or they would not be able to protect their patents, must be made publicly available. Applicants must also be required to supply NGT plant reference material to GMO control labs to enable detection.<br> </li> <li><strong>Numbers of patents:</strong> CropLife claims that patentability criteria are applied strictly by the European Patent Office (EPO), with only about 30% of patent applications for NGT-related inventions granted. However, a search on CRISPR + plants in the European jurisdiction alone turned up 3,327 records.<a href="#_edn33" name="_ednref33">[33]</a> Even if “only” 30% of those are granted, that’s more than enough to tie up breeders and farmers in patent wars. In addition, there is the dangerous trend whereby the EPO is granting patents that cover conventionally bred traits as well as NGT-developed traits (see “Patents a sticking point”, above). <br> </li> <li><strong>Patent ownership: </strong>CropLife claims that patent ownership is “broad and diverse”, with 28% of NGT-related applications coming from academic and research institutions, “showing a competitive and diverse innovation landscape”. But while academic and research institutions often develop NGT “inventions” and patent them, on their own they often cannot afford to commercialise NGT organisms. The institutions will then typically license the product or technology to a company, or sell it outright to them. Even if they retain the patent rights, the farmer or breeder who wants to use the patented traits still has to pay licensing fees and/or royalties to the patent owner. So CropLife’s statement is irrelevant to the threat posed by patents to farmers and breeders. <br> </li> <li><strong>Patents and innovation:</strong> CropLife says that the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) system protects entire plant varieties, but patents protect individual traits. CropLife argues that both systems, working together, are necessary for “innovation”. However, patents on traits cover all plants that incorporate them. This is shown time and again in the patent claims of the industry, which begin with the term, “A plant comprising...” Therefore, these patents could cover hundreds of plant varieties, not just one, which would lead to a much broader negative impact of monopolisation. This will stifle innovation by independent breeders. Therefore, strong protections must be established for farmers’ and breeders’ access to plant genetic material. </li> </ul> <p><strong>What about the promise of sustainability?</strong></p> <p>Industry has always claimed that genome editing would contribute to sustainability aims and used that as a reason for the deregulation of new GMOs.<a href="#_edn34" name="_ednref34">[34]</a> But the biotech seeds lobby actually opposed mandatory sustainability criteria for the deregulated NGT status. In an October 2025 meeting with the Commission, the seeds lobby group Euroseeds and member companies Limagrain, Bayer, Corteva, KWS and Syngenta expressed “concerns that making sustainability a condition for category 1 NGT status would impose a heavy regulatory burden on NGT plants, and raised questions about how sustainability could be assessed at that stage”.<a href="#_edn35" name="_ednref35">[35]</a></p> <p>Indeed, in the final text there are no mandatory sustainability criteria for the deregulated group of NGT products (category 1). Regarding sustainability, the only exceptions for deregulation are those products that are tolerant to herbicides or have known insecticidal effects. Otherwise, only a monitoring of sustainability impacts of NGTs is included in the text.<br> </p> <p><strong>New law brings less safety, more patent control – what will Parliament do?</strong></p> <p>In December 2025, despite all opposition, a final compromise was reached between the EU Member States and the European Parliament’s rapporteur, with the latter giving up on the Parliament’s key demands for labelling and a ban on patents. Instead, weak proposals were adopted, such as a public database for patent information for NGT1 products (those assumed to be equivalent to conventional plants), the Commission setting up an expert group, and introducing a voluntary ‘code of conduct’ for patent holders to give licences.<a href="#_edn36" name="_ednref36">[36]</a></p> <p>These weak provisions do not offer any meaningful protection for farmers and breeders against allegations of unlicensed use of patented genetic material in conventional and organic crops, foods, and food products at any point in the supply chain. Breeding programmes risk being abandoned due to the increased monopolisation of plant genetic material by patent owners and the consequent threat of patent infringement claims.<a href="#_edn37" name="_ednref37">[37]</a></p> <p>The deregulation of NGTs is set to lead to further monopolisation in the food chain by large agribusiness companies, through the patenting of food crops. The European Parliament should vote to uphold its demands for mandatory labelling from seeds to consumer products, as well as for measures ensuring small- and medium-sized seed companies and farmers and the wider food system are not adversely impacted by patented crops. <br> </p> <hr> <p id="edn1"><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a> Clergeau C, Petersen K (2025). Who really benefits from new genomic techniques? Farmers and consumers at risk. Euractiv, 10 Mar. <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/">https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/</a> </p> <p id="edn2"><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a> Prtorić J, Galindo G (2025). Unpacking EU’s food fight over new gene-edited supercrops. EUobserver, 13 Mar. <a href="https://euobserver.com/46146/unpacking-eus-food-fight-over-new-gene-edited-supercrops/">https://euobserver.com/46146/unpacking-eus-food-fight-over-new-gene-edited-supercrops/</a> </p> <p id="edn3"><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[3]</a> Osborne Clarke (2025). European Council adopts negotiating mandate on patents for gene-edited plants. 16 Apr. <a href="https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/european-council-adopts-negotiating-mandate-patents-gene-edited-plants">https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/european-council-adopts-negotiating-mandate-patents-gene-edited-plants#:~:text=EU%20moves%20closer%20to%20regulatory,Gene%20editing</a></p> <p id="edn4"><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[4]</a> ECVC (2024). Patents on new genomic techniques: Briefing note. June. <a href="https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-06-Patents-on-NGTS-ECVC-Briefing-note-EN.pdf">https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-06-Patents-on-NGTS-ECVC-Briefing-note-EN.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn5"><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[5]</a> Council of the EU (2025). New genomic techniques: Council and Parliament strike deal to boost the competitiveness and sustainability of our food systems. 4 Dec. <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/</a> </p> <p id="edn6"><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a> Greenpeace et al (2025). Joint statement on the deregulation of new GMOs. 11 Feb. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf">https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn7"><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a> No Patents on Seeds! (2025). Just 7 patents affect 145 conventionally bred plant varieties. 10 Dec. <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/7-Patents">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/7-Patents</a> </p> <p id="edn8"><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a> GMWatch (2026). European Patent Office turns its back on EU decisions. 14 Jan. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20628">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20628</a> ; GMWatch (2024). 20 new European patents on conventionally bred seeds. 15 Oct. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20469">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20469</a></p> <p id="edn9"><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9">[9]</a> Biojournaal (2025). Verzet tegen patent op klassieke veredeling laait weer op door ToBRFV. 13 Jun. <a href="https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/">https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/</a> </p> <p id="edn10"><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10">[10]</a> No Patents on Seeds (2026). European Patent Office tries to knock out European patent law. 19 Feb. <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law</a></p> <p id="edn11"><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11">[11]</a> Galindo G, Prtorić J (2025). Verstrikt in het patentenweb. De Groene Amsterdammer, 9 Sept. <a href="https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb">https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb</a> </p> <p id="edn12"><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12">[12]</a> Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter e.V. et al (2025). Urgent restriction of bio-patents for breeding and agriculture. 13 June. <a href="https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd">https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd</a> The original statement in German is here: <a href="https://www.ekd.de/ekd_de/ds_doc/2025-06-12_Positionspapaier_Biopatente_final_komplett.pdf">https://www.ekd.de/ekd_de/ds_doc/2025-06-12_Positionspapaier_Biopatente_final_komplett.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn13"><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13">[13]</a> DBV (2025). Trilog zu Neuen Züchtungsmethoden: DBV warnt vor Patentrisiken. Sabet: Keine Kompromisse zu Lasten der Landwirtschaft. 1 Dec. <a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn14"><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14">[14]</a> Marks & Clark (2024). EU NGT proposal approval. 14 Feb. <a href="https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102jvrc-eu-ngt-proposal-approval/">https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102jvrc-eu-ngt-proposal-approval/</a> </p> <p id="edn15"><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15">[15]</a> Shah P (2025). EU agrees on NGT plant regulation: what it means for patents and licensing. Dec. <a href="https://www.hgf.com/knowledge-hub/blog-posts/eu-agrees-on-ngt-plant-regulation-what-it-means-for-patents-and-licensing/">https://www.hgf.com/knowledge-hub/blog-posts/eu-agrees-on-ngt-plant-regulation-what-it-means-for-patents-and-licensing/</a> </p> <p id="edn16"><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16">[16]</a> Testbiotech (2021). New GE and food plants: The disruptive impact of patents on breeders, food production and society. June. <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Patents_on-new-GE.pdf">https://www.testbiotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Patents_on-new-GE.pdf</a> ; Onorati A (2026). NGT patents, seed market and investments. ECVC, 9 Mar. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn17"><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17">[17]</a> Onorati A (2026). NGT patents, seed market and investments. ECVC, 9 Mar. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn18"><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18">[18]</a> Copa-Cogeca (2025). Letter to Commission. 21 May. Subject: new genomic techniques (NGTs) and patent protection. Ref. LETTER (25)01454. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn19"><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19">[19]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Copa-Cogeca, 3 Jul 2025. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn20"><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20">[20]</a> Copa-Cogeca (2025). Subject: Urgent need to continue trilogues on new genomic techniques (NGTs). 19 Sept. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/24_LETTER2502378-Vrhelyi_-_Attachment_to_doc_23.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/24_LETTER2502378-Vrhelyi_-_Attachment_to_doc_23.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn21"><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21">[21]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Copa-Cogeca, 3 Nov 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn22"><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22">[22]</a> Meunier E (2025). Copa-Cogeca’s ambiguities on the issue of plant patents. Inf’OGM, 29 Jan. <a href="https://infogm.org/en/copa-cogecas-ambiguities-on-the-issue-of-plant-patents/">https://infogm.org/en/copa-cogecas-ambiguities-on-the-issue-of-plant-patents/</a> </p> <p id="edn23"><a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23">[23]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. LET/25/LL/39140. 24 Oct. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn24"><a href="#_ednref24" name="_edn24">[24]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Report on the Intellectual Property framework of plant related inventions obtained by NGTs. <a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/">https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/</a></p> <p id="edn25"><a href="#_ednref25" name="_edn25">[25]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). An open letter to representatives of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission on why Intellectual Property is a catalyst for bringing in agricultural innovation in the EU. 6 Oct. <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf">https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf</a> ; CropLife Europe (2025). Email: CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. 29 Oct. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/16_CLE_letter_on_IP_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative_proposal_for_a__regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic_Techniques.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/16_CLE_letter_on_IP_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative_proposal_for_a__regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic_Techniques.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn26"><a href="#_ednref26" name="_edn26">[26]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Euroseeds, 7 Jul 2025. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn27"><a href="#_ednref27" name="_edn27">[27]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn28"><a href="#_ednref28" name="_edn28">[28]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. LET/25/LL/39140. 24 Oct. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn29"><a href="#_ednref29" name="_edn29">[29]</a> Technopolis (2025). Supporting innovation in the EU bioeconomy through intellectual property protection: Challenges and opportunities for agricultural biotechnology. Final Report. European Commission, Nov. <a href="https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf">https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn30"><a href="#_ednref30" name="_edn30">[30]</a> Robinson C (2023). Plant breeders’ associations and seed companies claim to oppose patents on new GMOs – but there’s a catch. GMWatch, 5 Mar. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188</a> </p> <p id="edn31"><a href="#_ednref31" name="_edn31">[31]</a> Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31994R2100">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31994R2100</a> </p> <p id="edn32"><a href="#_ednref32" name="_edn32">[32]</a> Harris P (2013). Monsanto sued small farmers to protect seed patents – report. The Guardian, 12 Feb. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents</a> ; Center for Food Safety (2013). Seed giants vs US farmers. <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf">https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn33"><a href="#_ednref33" name="_edn33">[33]</a> Lens.org (2026). Search on CRISPR + plants, in European jurisdiction. 10 Mar. <a href="https://www.lens.org/lens/search/patent/list?q=(CRISPR%20plants)&p=0&n=10&s=_score&d=%2B&f=false&e=false&l=en&authorField=author&dateFilterField=publishedDate&orderBy=%2B_score&presentation=false&preview=true&stemmed=true&useAuthorId=false&j.must=EP">https://www.lens.org/lens/search/patent/list?q=(CRISPR%20plants)&p=0&n=10&s=_score&d=%2B&f=false&e=false&l=en&authorField=author&dateFilterField=publishedDate&orderBy=%2B_score&presentation=false&preview=true&stemmed=true&useAuthorId=false&j.must=EP</a> </p> <p id="edn34"><a href="#_ednref34" name="_edn34">[34]</a> For example: Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025.</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn35"><a href="#_ednref35" name="_edn35">[35]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a> </p> <p id="edn36"><a href="#_ednref36" name="_edn36">[36]</a> Council of the EU (2025). New genomic techniques: Council and Parliament strike deal to boost the competitiveness and sustainability of our food systems. 4 Dec. <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/</a> </p> <p id="edn37"><a href="#_ednref37" name="_edn37">[37]</a> No Patents on Seeds (2026). European Patent Office tries to knock out European patent law. 19 Feb. <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law</a> ; Scotten M (2024). ‘Laying claim to nature’s work’: plant patents sow fear among small growers. The Guardian, 25 Jan. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/plant-patents-large-companies-intellectual-property-small-breeders">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/plant-patents-large-companies-intellectual-property-small-breeders</a> ; No Patents on Seeds (2025). Patent on maize with native traits upheld. 6 Nov. <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/outcome">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/outcome</a> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="14 Letter from Copa Cogeca on new genomic techniques NGTs and patent protection.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/14%20Letter%20from%20Copa%20Cogeca%20on%20new%20genomic%20techniques%20NGTs%20and%20patent%20protection.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14 Letter from Copa Cogeca on new genomic techniques NGTs and patent protection.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-3.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-4.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-4.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-4.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-5.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-5.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-6.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-6.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-8.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-8.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-8.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-7.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-7.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-7.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="16 CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques-2.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/16%20CLE%20letter%20on%20IP%20protection%20in%20the%20context%20of%20the%20legislative%20proposal%20for%20a%20regulation%20for%20plants%20obtained%20by%20certain%20New%20Genomic%20Techniques-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">16 CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques-2.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17 39140 Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques Attachment to doc.16-3.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/17%2039140%20Intellectual%20property%20protection%20in%20the%20context%20of%20the%20legislative%20proposal%20for%20a%20regulation%20for%20plants%20obtained%20by%20certain%20New%20Genomic%20Techniques%20Attachment%20to%20doc.16-3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17 39140 Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques Attachment to doc.16-3.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>2025 Annual Review</h1> <p>Joana — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 21:57:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="ANNUAL REVIEW_2025.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/ANNUAL%20REVIEW_2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ANNUAL REVIEW_2025.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>UK Premiere: The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa</h1> <p>Pascoe Sabido — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 13:37:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> May 5th, 2026 </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/gas-lobby" hreflang="en">Gas lobby</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>Start: Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 06:00 PM</h2> <h2>End: Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 07:30 PM</h2> <h2>Location: Mander Hall, National Education Union Hamilton House • Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, Camden, London, WC1H 9BD GB</h2> <h2>Host Contact Info: <a href="#" data-mail-to="whfggenafvgvba/ng/ybaqbazvavatargjbex/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></h2> <p><em>Register your place </em><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-scramble-for-green-hydrogen-in-south-africa-screening-and-discussion/"><em>here</em></a><em> to avoid disappointment</em></p> </div> <details class="one-minute-summary js-form-wrapper form-wrapper"> <summary role="button" aria-expanded="false">Check a 1 minute summary</summary><div class="details-wrapper"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-one-minute-summary field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In London on 5th May? Join us for the UK premier of our documentary, The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa. It will be followed by a Q&A with campaigners from the UK, EU and South Africa about the impacts of Europe's green neocolonialism, and what the latest state of play is.</p> </div> </div> </details> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>London Mining Network (LMN), Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) are delighted to host the UK premier of 'The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa'. The documentary, produced by CEO, exposes the impacts of Europe's scramble to import green hydrogen on the lives and livelihoods of local communities across South Africa, and raises the voices of those fighting back.</p> <p>The UK has made green hydrogen a cornerstone of its energy strategy, aiming for an eye watering 10GW of green hydrogen production capacity by 2030, two and a half times current global production levels. Over £2 billion in funding has been committed for projects in Bradford, Barrow, Teesside and beyond.</p> <p>Yet the UK's hydrogen rush relies on platinum group metals overwhelmingly imported by British mining giant Anglo American from South Africa and Zimbabwe, driving displacement, water scarcity and energy poverty.</p> <p>We will be joined by campaigners in South Africa and the UK resisting the hydrogen rush for a discussion following the film, to discuss whether green hydrogen is really the silver-bullet solution to the climate crisis it has been sold as, and who really benefits from green hydrogen expansion plans.</p> <p>We will be joined by:</p> <p><strong>Yegeshni Moodley</strong>: Yegeshni is a Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner at <strong>groundWork South Africa</strong>.</p> <p><strong>Pascoe Sabido</strong>: Pascoe is a researcher and campaigner at<strong> Corporate Europe Observatory </strong>in the climate justice team.</p> <p>More to be announced soon!</p> <p><em><strong>Register </strong></em><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-scramble-for-green-hydrogen-in-south-africa-screening-and-discussion/"><em><strong>here</strong></em></a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Deregulation Watch Nuevo</h1> <p>Rik Willemen — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 09:40:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--block paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-block field--type-block-field field--label-hidden field__item"> <div class="views-element-container block block-views block-views-blockmicroblog-block-1" id="block-views-block-microblog-block-1"> <div><div class="view view-microblog view-id-microblog view-display-id-block_1 js-view-dom-id-2a806141b0e6653c5d581615d88e4465d5c4cae8b366003322cde48cc9d90b2e"> <div class="view-content"> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">The dreaded blueprint for social dumping</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-24T11:36:00+01:00" title="Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 11:36" class="datetime">24 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector:</strong> general, company law</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The Commission has presented its proposal for a '28th regime', that will introduce a European company form with its own rulebook.</li> <li>The EU Inc. proposal will enable companies to ignore labour rights. </li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know: </strong></p> <p>The Commission’s proposal on the 28<sup>th</sup> regime has been released, and the initial signs are worrying.</p> <p>On Wednesday 18 March the Commission tabled a proposal that had been anticipated with both joy and dread since it was first announced in Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines for this term- “a so-called 28th regime to allow companies to benefit from a simpler, harmonised set of rules in certain areas,” <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">the guidelines</a> read. </p> <p>Technically, it is about introducing a European company form, with easier and faster registration. However, this could provide an easy way of sidestepping rules at the national level, introduced to uphold workers rights. If the national approach be cumbersome, companies can simply choose a different rulebook – a European one, the 28<sup>th</sup> regime. </p> <p><strong>Attack on labour rights</strong></p> <p>The jury is now out on the exact effect of the model picked by the Commission, but analysts in all quarters have taken an initial look at the text to figure out its nature. So far, trade union analysts are not in doubt: labour rights are under attack. </p> <p>Nevertheless, according to trade unions, there are good reasons to be worried already. Services workers federation UNI Europa regional secretary Oliver Roetig said in <a href="https://www.uni-europa.org/news/eu-inc-a-free-pass-for-regime-shopping/">a statement</a>, that with “companies allowed to cherry-pick countries with lower standards, it risks undermining our European social model, industrial relations and quality jobs. The proposal is unfortunately very clear: employee participation rights are linked to where the company is registered, and the company can register where they want.”</p> <p>General Secretary of the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers Tom Deleu <a href="https://www.efbww.eu/publications/press-releases/letterbox-inc-in-the-making-commission-proposal-ignores-fraud-re/4961-a">agrees</a>: “This is a bad proposal. In sectors like construction, EU Inc. will quickly turn into ‘Letterbox Inc’: it will fuel social dumping, weaken enforcement, and put workers at risk,” he said. </p> <p>The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/03/18/businesses-are-pleased-trade-unions-are-concerned-politicians-are-divided-reactions-to-the-eus-28th-regime/">highlighted</a> the absence of provisions that could have prevented companies from circumventing national labour laws, thereby endangering collective bargaining, wages, and rights to information and consultation in peril. </p> <p><strong>Triumphant business groups</strong></p> <p>For the business community, the Commission comes bearing gifts. There is already a hint in the name of the proposal, <a href="https://www.eu-inc.org/">EU Inc.</a>, taken straight from the lobby group set up by finance and industry companies to promote the idea. BusinessEurope, the main employers’ association, is satisfied, not least because what was first presented by the Commission President as a measure to support “innovative companies” ended up as something much broader. BusinessEurope’s Secretary General Markus Beyrer <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/28th-regime-proposal-a-positive-development-for-competitiveness-across-the-single-market/">notes with satisfaction</a> that the proposed new rulebook is “open to all types of companies.”</p> <p><strong>Similar plans have been defeated</strong></p> <p>It is not the first time the trade union movement faces a challenge like this, and previous attempts have been defeated. That could happen again – through campaigns waged by labour or more cross-cutting efforts. It does not take opposition from so many governments to defeat it. </p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Next week’s summit: the dual threat of EU and national deregulation</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-13T11:35:00+01:00" title="Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:35" class="datetime">13 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>A wide range of new deregulation initiatives will be revealed during next week’s EU summit</li> <li>Spanish MP Sánchez and Commissioner Ribera have spoken out against sweeping deregulation</li> <li>EU level deregulation combined with a strong clampdown on member state rule-making would mean ‘double deregulation’, bringing social and environmental progress to a halt</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know?</strong></p> <p>The EU summit in Brussels on 19-20 March will be <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=1127&cid=18&cs=0108905b27967c05428d498dba312aa1_1773309304_168">a key event for the future of Europe</a>, in a context of unprecedented pressure to further accelerate the EU's deregulation agenda that was launched by Commission President von der Leyen in her second term. Much of the summit agenda is based on the outcomes of the scandalously industry-captured EU "retreat" in Alden-Biesen last month (see Deregulation Watch <strong>16 February 2026</strong>).The Commission will present its "One Europe, One Market" roadmap and action plan. The roadmap will include timelines for legislative measures to be adopted by the end of 2027. It will have a strong focus on “deepening the Single Market”, but details remain to be seen. On 18 March, the Commission will launch its proposal for an "EU Inc." company status. Trade unions warn that this could result in a <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/etuc-ces.bsky.social/post/3mgn5dz4zms2y">race to the bottom for workers' rights</a>.<br><br>Leaked draft Council conclusions show that member state governments want "all pending omnibus packages" agreed upon by the end of the year. They also ask the Commission to propose more omnibus packages, beyond the ten presented in 2025. The Council requests that the Commission undertake an "in-depth regulatory review" of the entire body of EU law, a plan that was already included in von der Leyen’s political guidelines in the summer of 2024, but now might get member states’ backing too. As part of this the Council also wants all future draft EU laws to be "simple by design," with more regulations than directives. This would also prevent so-called "gold-plating" of EU legislation — a term favoured by corporate lobby groups to describe when governments exceed the minimum standards in EU directives by adding higher environmental, health, consumer, or worker rights standards. This legitimate option is now considered taboo among deregulation-obsessed EU decision-makers—a major lobbying victory for BusinessEurope (which has been <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2013-00641-E-1ea-1.pdf">attacking ‘goldplating’</a> for more than a decade) and other corporate hardliners.<br><br>Similar to before the Alden-Biesen retreat in February, right-wing government leaders Friedrich Merz, Giorgia Meloni, and Bart De Wever <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/nvondarza.bsky.social/post/3mgoriz2bq22b">held a preparatory discussion</a> to advance their joint agenda of accelerating deregulatiaon Last month, Merz called for a "regulatory clean slate," insisting on "deregulating every sector" to boost competitiveness. Recently, Meloni led a new attack on EU climate policy, particularly the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has also been <a href="https://euobserver.com/206244/row-over-eu-emissions-trading-as-industry-hits-back-at-chemical-lobby">under heavy fire from chemicals lobby giant CEFIC</a>. This week, <a href="https://caneurope.org/can-europe-letter-calls-on-member-states-to-support-an-ambitious-robust-and-socially-just-post-2030-climate-policy-architecture/">Climate Action Network Europe wrote to EU environment ministers</a>, warning that "the deregulation agenda promoted around the Antwerp Industry Summit and the February informal European Council risks repeating the mistakes of the past — delaying investment, deepening fossil dependence, and leaving Europe behind in the global race for clean industrial leadership." <br><br>Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly <a href="https://pes.eu/economy/pes-backs-spains-plan-for-a-competitive-europe-that-protects-its-social-model-and-strengthens-its-open-strategic-autonomy/">distanced himself from the radical deregulation agenda</a> promoted by Meloni, Merz and De Wever. In a ten-point "non-paper" for the upcoming EU Summit, Sánchez offered an alternative vision to the document proposed by Merz and Meloni last month. According to Sánchez, a "truly successful competitiveness strategy" cannot sideline social cohesion or the Green Deal in the name of regulatory simplification. He wants to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-defends-eus-carbon-market-against-flurry-of-attacks-from-other-capitals/">keep decarbonisation at the core of EU competitiveness</a> and scale up public investment at the European level.<br><br>Last week, Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera also distanced herself from Merz’s demands, warning that "deregulation could spell the end of the EU." In an <a href="https://www.contexte.com/eu/article/power/deregulation-could-spell-the-end-of-the-eu-ribera-warns_256799">interview with <em>Contexte</em></a>, Ribera said, "Tearing up EU rules in the name of boosting industry risks unravelling the bloc itself." She warned that "sweeping deregulation would effectively take Europe back to the early 1950s — an era before the founding Treaty of Rome and the common market — to a fragmented landscape of 'no common regulation' and '27 national realities.'"<br><br>If EU legislation is rolled back and the emergence of new EU rules to solve societal problems is made much harder, this will indeed force national governments to develop their own rules instead. However, if the Commission simultaneously moves ahead with"Single Market enforcement" initiatives to clamp down on member state laws that industry considers "regulatory barriers" (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/06/30-years-eu-single-market">many of which are legitimate rules</a> and policies in the public interest), we will face a disastrous scenario of double deregulation. The extent of this threat will become clearer when the Commission presents the "One Europe, One Market" action plan.</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Chemicals Omnibus: battle in European Parliament</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-12T11:35:00+01:00" title="Thursday, March 12, 2026 - 11:35" class="datetime">12 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector:</strong> Chemicals</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now; progressive MEPs have tabled some positive amendments</li> <li>Following a civil society complaint about the Chemicals Omnibus, the European Ombudsman will consider our concerns in the context of her wider inquiries into recent EU decision-making, and inform the Commission of the complaint</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now. This omnibus, number VI in the European Commission’s <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-and-implementation/simplification_en">programme</a>, seeks to deregulate aspects of chemicals labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers regulations.</p> <p>But MEPs from the Left, Greens, Socialists & Democrats, and Renew Europe groups have tabled amendments on a variety of issues to substantially transform the draft.</p> <p>One set of <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1856397/progressive-mepsseekreintroduction-ofclp-labelling-rules-in-eu-chemicals-omnibus">amendments</a> would reinstate chemicals hazard labelling requirements such as minimum font sizes and line spacing standards to make them more legible. These requirements were introduced by the Commission in the recent 2024 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/revised-chemical-labelling-regulation-enters-force-2024-12-10_en">revision</a> of the regulation, but the Commission’s 2025 Chemicals Omnibus now proposes that they should be removed!</p> <p>Progressive MEPs have also <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1866192/meps-remain-split-on-challenging-chemicals-omnibus">proposed</a>, via the Chemicals Omnibus, that endocrine disruptors and forever chemicals (PFAS) should be banned in cosmetic products to enhance protection of public health. Other amendments seek to reverse the Commission’s plans to (1) make it easier to use carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances in cosmetics, and to (2) keep them on the market for longer. A <a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/briefing-en-omnibus-vi.pdf">briefing</a> by Générations Futures explains more.</p> <p>At the time of writing, negotiations are still underway, with progressive groups now tabling weaker, compromise amendments in an effort to secure agreement. But of course the right and extreme right wing parties in the European Parliament form an overall majority, and there is a real <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/tickets-please-the-chemicals-omnibus-is-back">worry</a> that the EPP [right wing party] will "choose to form an alliance with ECR [extreme right party] and the far right”. Per Clausen MEP, the Danish shadow rapporteur from the Left political group, has <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/the-chemicals-omnibus-sprint-to-finish-line">told</a> <em>Politico</em> that "the right wing’s fascination with keeping substances known to cause cancer on the market for years continues to boggle my mind." </p> <p>Meanwhile the European Ombudsman has decided to take action on a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Ombudsman%20complaint%20on%20chemicals%20omnibus%2019.2.2026%20FINALx_0.pdf">complaint</a> about the way the Commission developed the Chemicals Omnibus. Tabled by Corporate Europe Observatory, Générations Futures, Health and Environment Alliance, European Environmental Bureau, and the Center for International Environmental Law, the complaint focused on the Commission’s failure to provide a robust evidence base, nor conduct a public consultation. Instead the EU’s executive relied on a failed ‘reality check’ process, including slido polls, which was dominated by industry.</p> <p>The Ombudsman has told us that she will <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/DECISION_202600469_20260309_153155.pdf">consider</a> our concerns in the context of her <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/220471">wider inquiries</a> into recent Commission decision-making (including into Omnibus I, see Deregulation Watch update 13 January 2026), and that she will inform the Commission of our complaint as “it suggests that the issues addressed in my recommendation are not limited to the legislative proposals in question in the three cases I inquired into.”</p> <p>Générations Futures and Health and Environment Alliance have <a href="https://shaketonpolitique.org/en/appeals/omnibus-6/">launched a tool</a> for citizens to support an improved Chemicals Omnibus, while the Greens in the European Parliament have also <a href="https://act.greens-efa.eu/cosmetics/">set up a petition</a> to demand no poisonous chemicals in cosmetics. </p> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Retreat at Belgian castle paves the way for harsh EU deregulation plan to be agreed at March Summit</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-02-16T11:34:00+01:00" title="Monday, February 16, 2026 - 11:34" class="datetime">16 Feb 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Last week's European Industry Summit in Antwerp and the EU Summit in Alden Biesen were arguably the most corporate-captured events the EU has ever experienced. </li> <li>The EU retreat appears to have endorsed the "One Europe, One Market" plan and a fast-track schedule for the proposed "28th Regime" legislation. </li> <li>These events are further accelerating the EU deregulation wave, with an important EU Council Summit planned in mid March.</li> <li>Meanwhile, opposition from civil society groups and trade unions is reaching new heights.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know: </strong><br>Following Thursday’s EU leaders retreat at the Alden Biesen castle in Belgium, Commission President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_26_405">Ursula von der Leyen announced</a> that EU leaders had agreed to approve a “One Europe, One Market Roadmap and Action Plan” at the EU summit on March 18. This radical deregulation plan includes the following main ingredients: </p> <ul> <li>speeding up the approval of the ten omnibus packages proposed last year and adding more this year as part of what she described as "a deep house cleaning of the acquis" (the term "acquis" refers to the complete collection of EU laws); </li> <li>"cracking down on gold-plating," a longstanding corporate lobbying demand to restrict governments' ability to exceed the minimum standards agreed upon in EU directives </li> <li>"sunset clauses for laws," meaning adding expiration dates to laws so they are discontinued unless renewed or reauthorized. </li> </ul> <p>Von der Leyen also announced that the Commission will launch its legislative proposal for the 28th regime before the March EU summit, meaning sometime within the next four weeks. The law is to be dubbed "EU Inc.," the name of an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-inc/posts/?feedView=all">industry lobbying coalition</a> with <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">close links to Big Tech</a>, that has promoted the proposal for the past few years. Trade unions are deeply concerned that the forthcoming 28th regime will <a href="https://www.etui.org/publications/how-28th-company-law-regime-jeopardises-workers-rights">undermine workers' rights</a>. Earlier this month, Esther Lynch, head of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), warned that <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/rage-against-the-28th-regime/?utm_source=euractiv&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_content=The+Roundup&utm_term=0-0&utm_campaign=THE_BRIEF">the 28th Regime could create "the biggest loophole in history"</a> if it fails to specify where businesses are legally based. “How would the labour inspector know where the employer even was?” she asked. </p> <p>The measures announced by von der Leyen reflect many of the key demands presented last month by Prime Ministers Merz and Meloni ("Merzoni", see also Deregulation Watch post 29 January 2026) as well as the overlapping wish lists of big business lobby groups. This is deeply worrying, considering their political agenda. In his article, "The Merzoni Plan Would Take Europe Backwards, Not Forward," Dave Keating describes Merz and Meloni as the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-new-power-couple-alliance-europe-giorgia-meloni-friedrich-merz/">"new right-wing Atlanticist power couple"</a> and <a href="https://impakter.com/merz-meloni-non-paper-eu-constitutional-coup/">quotes Claude Forthomme</a> who describes their joint initiative in the run-up to the Alden Biesen summit as "a constitutional coup, extending right-wing, pro-business power over the EU Commission and the European Parliament." <br><br>The Alden Biesen summit was preceded by a <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/11/european-leaders-meet-industry-heavyweights-in-power-shift-for-business">European Industry Summit in Antwerp</a> the day before. During this summit, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/antwerp-industry-meeting-shows-who-really-rules-europe/">von der Leyen, Merz, De Wever, and other EU leaders</a> met with industry leaders and lobbyists. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7428519009702178816/">László Andor</a>, the former EU Commissioner who is now the Secretary General of FEPS, described the two connected events as "a show of power to demand the rapid implementation of the center-right–far-right economic agenda without ifs or buts." The summit was indeed an intensely corporate-captured event. In the weeks before, von der Leyen’s cabinet held a series of preparatory meetings with corporate lobbying giants ERT and BusinessEurope on the two summits, including a<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu/post/3me5bg32ctk2h"> dinner meeting with more than a dozen BusinessEurope lobbyists</a> in the first week of February. As the Spanish campaigner Tom Kucharz points out, this is the culmination of <a href="https://www.elsaltodiario.com/la-motosierra-ue/cumbre-ue-castillo-alden-biesen">a corporate lobbying campaign that began in 2022</a>. <br><br>Last week, proponents of deregulation staged an unprecedented PR show, but civil society groups and trade unions demonstrated their determination to resist this agenda with an unprecedented number of initiatives. Extinction Rebellion <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/09/eu-urged-not-roll-back-green-agenda-revive-faltering-economy">occupied the offices of the chemical industry lobbying giant CEFIC</a> to protest their Antwerp Summit. A coalition of NGOs and unions <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">denounced von der Leyen’s agenda</a> of prioritizing a “shadow roadmap” of industry-led deregulation over democratic and environmental safeguards. The <a href="https://grandparentsforclimate.eu/belgian-grandparents-talk-to-politicians-about-climate-alarm/">Flemish Grandparents for Climate</a> demonstrated in Alden-Biesen the weekend before the summit and Irish comedian Michael Fry attacked von der Leyen’s deregulation wave in <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/bigdirtyfry.bsky.social/post/3mejae6idmc2u">a satirical video</a>. The Climate Action Network wrote to EU leaders to counter industry calls to roll back EU climate laws. In an opinion piece, <a href="https://euobserver.com/202737/corporate-lobbyists-push-for-deregulation-while-workers-pay-the-price/">ETUC's Esther Lynch denounced deregulation</a>, pointing out that "Europe's competitiveness challenge cannot be solved by stripping away rights and protections" and that “it can only be solved by building a mission-led economy — one that sets clear priorities, mobilises the significant investment needed, contributes to creating quality jobs”.</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Red Alert: mid-February EU summit aims to accelerate EU deregulation</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-01-29T11:33:00+01:00" title="Thursday, January 29, 2026 - 11:33" class="datetime">29 Jan 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell: </strong></p> <p>• An EU "Leaders' Retreat" on 12 February will discuss radical proposals to accelerate the deregulation of EU- and national-level legislation.</p> <p>• This reflects the growing support among EU governments for the deregulation agenda first launched by Commission President von der Leyen in late 2024.</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>On 12 February EU leaders will meet at Alden Biesen castle in rural Belgium for an informal summit dedicated to "competitiveness." The "Leaders' Retreat" will address deregulation demands proposed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month. The summit is hosted by Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, who shares the views of Merz and Meloni that the European economy is suffering from “overregulation”.</p> <p>During their <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/01/23/meloni-merz-europes-new-best-mates-want-to-abolish-eu-bureaucracy/">bilateral summit in Rome</a> last week, Merz stated that he and Meloni "want to dismantle bureaucracy to be more competitive" and called for "legislative and regulatory self-restraint." By "bureaucracy," Merz and Meloni mean rules developed to protect people and the environment. Meloni said that the EU’s ecological transition has "brought our industries to their knees." In a <a href="https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/01/merz-says-eu-crippled-itself-with-over-regulation-proposes-emergency-brake/">speech at the World Economic Forum</a> in Davos, Merz said that the EU has "crippled itself with over-regulation." In a <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/ger-ita-non-paper-competitiveness_en_finale.pdf">three-page document submitted for the EU summit</a>, Merz and Meloni called for "deeper integration of the Single Market," arguing that "we need to ease the regulatory burden on our businesses." The document claims that "our internal barriers add up to internal tariffs of 44 percent for trade in goods and more than 110 percent for trade in services." However, these figures are highly misleading, based on an IMF study with a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7420494211533225986-pkAv/?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI&utm_campaign=gmail">deeply flawed methodology</a>. The crusade to remove "internal barriers" in the Single Market <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf">threatens legitimate national-level environmental and social standards</a> and will likely hinder the advancement of progressive national-level regulations.</p> <p>Merz and Meloni also demand an Omnibus to speed up permitting, an "emergency brake" to allow governments to intervene if new EU legislation is considered too "burdensome," and the finalization of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">the controversial "28th Regime"</a> by the end of the year. They also demand "systematic monitoring and assessment of amendments proposed by the co-legislators in the legislative process to assess whether the proposed changes are associated with additional burdens" (ie. business-friendly impact assessments of amendments voted for by the European Parliament). </p> <p>Virtually all of these priorities are longstanding demands of industry lobbyists, promoted by BusinessEurope, the European Round Table for Industry (ERT), and others. Meanwhile, this lobbying continues at full speed. Last week, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), which is part of BusinessEurope, met with the cabinet of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss preparations for the informal EU summit scheduled for 12 February in Alden Biesen. Pieter Timmermans of FEB <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vbofeb_pieter-timmermans-met-with-the-cabinet-activity-7420099723442946050-Mkc3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI">posted on LinkedIn</a> that the lobby group "presented its key priorities, including strengthening the internal market [...] and cutting administrative burdens — particularly those associated with the Pay Transparency Directive." This last point refers to BusinessEurope's lobbying campaign for a so-called "social omnibus" that would weaken workers' rights (see Deregulation Watch update 11 December 2025) . The ERT also had a meeting last week with von der Leyen’s cabinet to discuss the "single market." Unfortunately, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=2e8c7181-c204-4f2d-9607-722ac7e2a7fe&host=no">the minutes posted online</a> are ultra brief and virtually useless (11 words: "Exchange of views on the barriers to strengthening the Single Market)". This undermines transparency and prevents public scrutiny of interactions between the Commission’s leadership and powerful industry lobby groups. Meanwhile late last week BusinessEurope published its “<a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/the-businesseurope-omnibook-to-reduce-regulatory-burdens/">Omnibook</a>” of almost 140 deregulation demands. Intensive corporate lobbying continues. </p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Omnibus X on food and feed safety: weakening safety rules on pesticides, GMOs, animal feed</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-01-19T11:33:00+01:00" title="Monday, January 19, 2026 - 11:33" class="datetime">19 Jan 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector: </strong>food and agriculture</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <p>The tenth <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b0817113-6edc-4219-b638-8060fee037d5_en?filename=horiz_omnibus_reg-com-2025-1030_en.pdf">Omnibus proposal</a> on food and feed was published by the European Commission in December 2025. Instead of raising the ambition on moving our food production away from the intensive use of pesticides, as promised in the <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en">EU Farm to Fork strategy</a>, this Omnibus would severely weaken pesticide safety standards. Most worryingly, it would scrap the regular renewal process for pesticide authorization for most substances, and make it more difficult for new evidence of harm from pesticide products to be used by EU member states. This could have serious consequences for our health and environment by keeping hazardous pesticides longer on the market.</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>This Omnibus contains a proposal to simplify the rules to bring biopesticides to the market. This is a longstanding promise, that was included in the pesticide reduction law SUR. The SUR was defeated after <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">a staunch industry lobby campaign</a>.</p> <p>However, and here it comes, the Omnibus would at the same time <em>bring down</em> safety standards for <em>synthetic pesticides</em>. A first leaked draft proposal of this Omnibus <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2025/12/%E2%80%98food-and-feed-safety-omnibus%E2%80%99-threatens-pesticide-rules">according to PAN-Europe</a> would have exempted up to 90% of all pesticides from re-evaluation.</p> <p>After strong protests, some of the worst elements from the leaked draft were removed. But the new version “continues to undermine key pillars of EU pesticide law”, <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/12/eu-commission-retreats-worst-plan-still-opens-door-unlimited-pesticide">commented PAN-Europe</a>. The proposal still grants most pesticides unlimited approval after a risk assessment is completed. Renewal assessments would only be required for specific cases, such as ‘candidates for substitution’ (pesticides known to be particularly harmful) or substances for which data gaps were observed.</p> <p>In addition, the Omnibus proposal would restrict Member States from using the latest scientific evidence in the assessment of pesticide formulations, and make it easier for companies to obtain EU-wide derogations for pesticides that are banned for safety reasons. It would also allow the use of certain types of drones for pesticide applications.</p> <p>In an independent scientific statement, <a href="https://www.ecologic.eu/20295">over 200 researchers and medical professionals are raising concerns</a> about these measures. <a href="https://www.ecologic.eu/20295">The statement warned</a> that the Omnibus would “weaken fundamental safeguards in pesticide risk assessment, with implications for environmental protection, biodiversity and human health”, and instead calls for a strengthening of the EU pesticide rules.</p> <p>The Commission also announced action to restrict or eliminate residues from pesticides banned in the EU on imported food and feed. This has been a longstanding demand from health and environmental groups. However <a href="https://www.foodwatch.org/en/omnibus-on-food-safety-checks-for-pesticides-under-attack">as foodwatch pointed out</a>, the proposal will also make EU decisions on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticides in foods for an unlimited time period, so no renewal assessments. It might end up being an empty promise, to be stricter on standards for imported food being the same as those demanded in the EU – when at the same time lowering the standards in the EU!</p> <p>The Omnibus would also introduce more ‘flexibility’ on border controls, as well as granting unlimited authorization for additives to animal feed, and more. Watch this space for actions to come.</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">2025 was the year of the Omnibus. Will 2026 be the year of resistance to EU deregulation?</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-01-13T11:32:00+01:00" title="Tuesday, January 13, 2026 - 11:32" class="datetime">13 Jan 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <p>• The European Commission launched ten Omnibus packages in 2025, weakening regulatory standards on issues ranging from corporate sustainability and digital rights to food safety</p> <p>• We’ve created an ‘Omnibus Tracker’ that provides an up-to-date overview of Omnibus proposals and what’s at stake</p> <p>• At least 3 other Omnibus packages have been announced for 2026, but this number is likely to grow during the year</p> <p>• Criticism of the Commission’s deregulation agenda is growing, and resistance is likely to become a major feature of 2026</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>2025 was the first full year of the second <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">von der Leyen Commission's agenda to promote corporate competitiveness by 'simplifying'</a> (i.e. deregulating) EU laws and weakening social and environmental standards and rights. The result was the launch of 10 so-called Omnibus proposals - which lump together multiple laws to be 'simplified' - during 2025. Together with our allies in civil society, we have created an <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true">Omnibus Tracker</a> showing which Omnibus packages have been launched, what is at stake, and where to find further information.</p> <p>The <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategy-documents/commission-work-programme/commission-work-programme-2026_en">Commission’s work programme for 2026</a> contains very little new legislation, focusing mainly on deregulation initiatives (see Deregulation Watch 24 October 2025, below). It lists three new omnibus proposals (taxation, energy product legislation, and citizens’ rights), but several more are likely to follow. Add to that other types of deregulation initiatives, such as the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">proposal for a 28th Regime law</a> expected in March. And that’s only the beginning: the European Commission will <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8556fc33-48a3-4a96-94e8-8ecacef1ea18_en?filename=250201_Simplification_Communication_en.pdf">“stress test” all existing EU legislation</a> on its impact on industrial competitiveness over the next few years. This could become the biggest wave of deregulation in the history of the EU</p> <p>An increasing number of critical voices are speaking out from within the EU policy bubble. <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/211340">The European Ombudsman issued a strong ruling</a> against the Commission’s omnibus approach, labeling it maladministration and insisting that the Commission cannot bypass democratic checks and balances. Last month, Commission Vice-President Ribera criticised the Commission’s deregulation agenda, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-red-tape-cutting-terrible-political-spectacle-teresa-ribera-says/">calling it a 'Trumpist approach'</a> that weakens standards, creates uncertainty, and burdens citizens. In a highly critical in-depth analysis published mid-December, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/17/burning-through-the-rulebook-europes-omnibus-fever.pdf">Politico Europe noted</a> that the Commission’s agenda is increasingly perceived as “deregulation by stealth”. Politico states that the omnibus paradigm “speeds up deployment but thins accountability” and erodes “transparency, participation, and institutional balance”.</p> <p>Civil society and trade unions are clearly opposed to the wave of deregulation. In September, almost 500 organisations signed a <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/eu-weakens-rules-safeguard-people-and-environment">statement “calling for more protections, not fewer”</a>, and national-level coalitions against EU deregulation are being formed. Our prediction: 2026 will be a year of growing resistance to the Omnibus paradigm and the wider deregulation agenda.</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Defence as a justification for deregulation: the military caveat in the Climate Law</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2025-12-17T11:31:00+01:00" title="Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 11:31" class="datetime">17 Dec 2025</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector:</strong> Climate</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Climate Law contains a new route for deregulation – the military trump card.</li> <li>That’s on top of a competitiveness review that could weaken targets, and the inclusion of dangerous distractions promoted by big polluters.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>Last week, the European Council and European Parliament <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/10/2040-climate-target-council-and-parliament-agree-on-a-90-emissions-reduction/">reached political agreement</a> on the Climate Law, which contains a new 2040 target for 90% emissions cuts, including 5% from buying international offset credits. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/06/carbon-offsets-fail-cut-global-heating-intractable-systemic-problems-study">Decades of evidence</a> shows that outsourcing emissions cuts to poorer countries does not reduce emissions (see <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch#:~:text=Deregulatory%20dangers%20from%20%E2%80%98flexibilities%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98competitiveness%E2%80%99%20review%20in%20the%20Climate%20Law%20%284%20November%202025">Deregulation Watch post from 4 November</a>), while the Climate Law’s goal of including so-called “carbon removals” in the EU Emission Trading System represents yet another huge loophole for big polluters.* In terms of deregulating climate policy, however, the biggest threat comes under the guise of competitiveness and military prioritisation. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch#:~:text=Deregulatory%20dangers%20from%20%E2%80%98flexibilities%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98competitiveness%E2%80%99%20review%20in%20the%20Climate%20Law%20%284%20November%202025">As expected</a>, the Law includes a review every two years that could weaken climate targets if they’re hurting industrial competitiveness – or more accurately, corporate profits.</p> <p>The consolidated text – <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=pascoe@corporateeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Fapi.politico.eu%2Feditorial_documents%2F50bf7664-cbee-441a-a4b8-77e89c773ca3/1/0102019b25c01345-65d6e499-77ca-4a54-838e-8f79b7d6fb40-000000/12_g3kLLRIzONOUXxiQ3mANn-Xo=456">made public today</a> – also contains another route to deregulation: the military trump card. The text states that when designing the post-2030 climate framework, the Commission should take into account:</p> <p>“<strong>the need to ensure the Union’s and its Member States’ capacity to rapidly increase and strengthen their defensive capacity by addressing possible burdens</strong> while maintaining incentives for industrial decarbonisation... and consider taking necessary measures, including legislative proposals”.</p> <p>In other words, climate goals should not be pursued if they are perceived as a “burden” on the EU’s military priorities. This far-reaching caveat paves the way for climate rules to be weakened, eroded or filled with new loopholes, all in the name of defence. This could risk new LNG imports or oil and gas exploration being justified as a military necessity.<br> </p> <p>* As <a href="https://www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/press-release-a-climate-law-for-polluters-confirmed">Real Zero Europe </a>warns, allowing emissions to be “compensated” by unproven carbon removal technologies – risky and dangerous technofixes that claim they will permanently take CO2 out of the atmosphere, by combining bioenergy or direct air capture with the fossil fuel industry's favourite red herring, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/sep/12/carbon-capture-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card-that-does-not-actually-work">carbon capture and storage</a> – is an illusory fix that delays the phase-out of fossil fuels, risks locking Europe into dependence on polluting industries, and will cost EU taxpayers billions for little to no climate benefit.</p> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Bad news and better news on water policy in Commission’s deregulation wave?</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2025-12-12T11:30:00+01:00" title="Friday, December 12, 2025 - 11:30" class="datetime">12 Dec 2025</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>This week’s <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">environmental omnibus</a>, following the recent <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2891">ResourceEU Action Plan</a>, emphasises the upcoming review of the Water Framework Directive, which is likely to deliver on corporate lobby demands to weaken its protections against pollution.</li> <li>However the Commission, at least for now, has <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_2998">decided</a> against reopening (and weakening) the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, despite heavy lobbying by the cosmetics and pharma industries to do so. <br> </li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong> </p> <p>The Water Framework Directive (WFD) will be subject to a “stress test” in the first half of 2026 as the Commission responds to corporate lobbying demands. In early December Environment Commissioner Roswall <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F209502/1/0102019ae4bb4a78-ca581c86-2582-4e67-8aad-baf2e9e4bb6c-000000/-WeE10TizAWiMmMVCNkNGYSq_sg=455">signalled</a> that there should be reform to water rules to make it easier to set up new mining infrastructure across Europe to access raw materials to feed industry. <em>Politico</em> reported Roswall as <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F209502/1/0102019ae4bb4a78-ca581c86-2582-4e67-8aad-baf2e9e4bb6c-000000/-WeE10TizAWiMmMVCNkNGYSq_sg=455">saying</a>: “there are long [waits] and some uncertainty on getting new permits due to different environmental legislations, and one is the Water Framework Directive.” </p> <p>This positioning reflects the lobbying demands of the non-energy extractive industry such as Euromines, as well as cement, ceramics, aggregates and other sectors, which have been <a href="https://euromines.org/neeip-joint-position-paper-on-the-water-framework-directive/">pushing</a> to weaken the WFD. But trade unions and NGOs have criticised the move. The General Secretary of EPSU, the European Public Service Union, called the Commission’s move <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/jwgoudriaan.bsky.social/post/3m73uyn6les2e">“beserk”</a> outlining that it would enable mining corporations to pollute water and increase costs for citizens. </p> <p>On a more positive note the Commission has <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_2998">decided</a> not to reopen the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), despite heavy lobbying by the cosmetics and pharma industries to do so. (See Deregulation Watch update 23 June 2025)</p> <p>These industries had been arguing that the polluter pays scheme, which forms part of the directive and which requires these two sectors to fund the clean-up of micro-pollutants from their products which end up in waste water, unfairly penalised them. Libération recently <a href="https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/pollution/micropolluants-les-coulisses-de-la-contre-offensive-des-lobbys-pharmaceutiques-et-cosmetiques-pour-contourner-la-loi-pollueur-payeur-20251210_UQCHTIWD2ZDL5OX55MPY35PNKY/">reported</a> on this intensive lobby battle, but the Commission has now concluded that, contrary to industry’s assertions, the expected costs of the scheme are as expected and it should go ahead as planned. </p> <p>This is good news, but as the Environmental Omnibus also <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">emphasises</a> how the Commission will “stress test” all EU environment rules by 2029, maybe the ‘polluter pays’ provisions of the UWWTD are not yet totally safe from the Commission’s deregulatory chainsaw.<br> </p> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Commission launches deregulatory environmental omnibus, number eight and counting</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2025-12-11T12:28:00+01:00" title="Thursday, December 11, 2025 - 12:28" class="datetime">11 Dec 2025</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Yesterday we saw the publication of the Commission’s <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">eighth so-called omnibus</a>, covering a raft of environmental regulations and aiming to weaken emissions reporting and management, scrap a database to inform recyclers about hazardous substances in products, and changes to ‘polluters pay’ schemes.</li> <li>Amongst other impacts, it is proposed that polluters should have weaker obligations, and more time to meet them, when it comes to the environmental impacts of their industrial plants.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong> </p> <p>As with the previous seven omnibuses, these measures are being presented as “simplification”, but corporate lobbyists will be ticking off a few more <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-01-22_businesseurope_mapping_of_regulatory_burden-d55-1.pdf">demands</a> from their deregulation hit-list. This is despite the fact that, as the Commission has acknowledged, tens of thousands of citizens provided feedback “against deregulation and weakening of environmental standards,” surely a reference to the impressive mobilisation by the <a href="https://handsoffnature.eu/the-campaign/">Hands Off Nature coalition</a> of civil society groups which defend current environmental safeguards.</p> <p>In response the European Environmental Bureau <a href="https://eeb.org/en/environmental-omnibus-eu-commission-weakens-another-set-of-laws-amid-maladministration-red-flags/">said</a>: the “new Environmental Omnibus package chips away at crucial EU laws that protect people’s health, nature and long-term prosperity.” Meanwhile Climate Action Network Europe <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?fetchDeterministicClustersOnly=true&heroEntityKey=urn%3Ali%3Aorganization%3A8646154&keywords=european%20environmental%20bureau&origin=RICH_QUERY_TYPEAHEAD_HISTORY&position=0&searchId=8a24413d-b071-4cfb-b01f-c14ce830853a&spellCorrectionEnabled=true">said</a> it “weakens the rules set to keep us safe, our air breathable, our water clean and our nature alive”. <br><br>But for environmental rules, this is just the start. The eighth omnibus <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">emphasises</a> how the Commission will “stress test” all EU environment rules by 2029, making it clear that far more roll-back is in the pipeline. Meanwhile work is already underway on aspects of existing water, waste, and chemicals rules, all of which is happening in the context of this reckless deregulation wave. </p> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @CartoonRalph </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> </div> <nav class="pager" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="pagination-heading"> <h4 id="pagination-heading" class="visually-hidden">Pagination</h4> <ul class="pager__items js-pager__items"> <li class="pager__item is-active"> <a href="?page=0" title="Current page" aria-current="page"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Current page </span>1</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=1" title="Go to page 2"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>2</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=2" title="Go to page 3"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>3</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=3" title="Go to page 4"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>4</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=4" title="Go to page 5"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>5</a> </li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--ellipsis" role="presentation">…</li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--next"> <a href="?page=1" title="Go to next page" rel="next"> <span class="visually-hidden">Next page</span> <span aria-hidden="true">→</span> </a> </li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--last"> <a href="?page=5" title="Go to last page"> <span class="visually-hidden">Last page</span> <span aria-hidden="true">Last »</span> </a> </li> </ul> </nav> </div> </div> </div></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>From lobbying to law: how business shapes EU deregulation</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 05:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 1 April 2026</strong> - The EU is deregulating at an unprecedented pace: environmental, social, digital and climate policies are being rolled back quickly and systematically. At the driver’s seat there are corporate lobby groups. They are dominating the European Commission’s “simplification” agenda, playing a central role in shaping new deregulation proposals.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf"><em>‘This is what corporate capture looks like!’</em></a>, Corporate Europe Observatory’s new report, exposes how corporations are influencing the EU’s deregulation agenda. According to the report, business groups have been granted privileged access to the drafting of Omnibus laws through bilateral meetings and targeted consultations, which are meant to inform the Commission’s decisions on which laws should be changed and how - the Implementation Dialogues and Reality Checks.</p> <p>Corporate interests dominate all key stages of the process: </p> <ul> <li> <p><strong>Omnibus-related meetings with Commissioners:</strong> In 2025, of the 13 Commissioners involved, 84% of meetings were held with business groups, compared to 7.8% with civil society organisations. Commissioners leading on 'simplification' show extreme imbalances: Dombrovskis held 182 out of 184 meetings with businesses, and Séjourné held 84 meetings of this kind, all of them with businesses.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Implementation Dialogues: </strong>71.1% of participants represent business interests, with limited representation from civil society and trade unions.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Reality Checks: </strong>Of the 22 Reality Checks analysed, 7 were business-only, 3 had over 90% business participation, 8 had no civil society participation and 11 had 5 or fewer civil society organisations. The average business participation was 79%.</p> </li> </ul> <p>As a result, there is a direct link between corporate lobbying and EU lawmaking. Proposals put forward by business groups in meetings and targeted consultations regarding ‘simplification’, are reflected in the content of the Commission’s Omnibus laws, operating like a direct pipeline from lobbying to lawmaking.</p> <p>The so-called Reality Checks is a particularly stark case, in that non-business participation is minuscule, there is little or no transparency around the meetings, and the link to Omnibus proposals are in some prominent cases very direct. With this approach, Corporate Europe Observatory believes the European Commission is in clear breech of old principles of consultation and transparency. At the same time, key safeguards for EU lawmaking are being undermined. Procedures designed to ensure balanced and evidence-based policymaking, such as broad consultations and impact assessments, are being sidelined in favour of faster, more targeted processes.</p> <p><strong>Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, </strong>says:<strong> </strong></p> <p><em>“We are witnessing an unprecedented level of corporate capture. In this new, more radical deregulation frenzy, corporate lobby groups are not just influencing policy, but shaping it from the outset. Corporate demands are translated into the Commission’s legislative proposals. To create this fast-moving deregulation machine rules are being bent and ethics standards undermined.”</em></p> <p><em>“It is not the first time we see the European Commission invite corporate lobby groups in to assist with a deregulation programme, but corporate capture is taken to a new level today. And we ask ourselves whether the existing framework on lobbying ethics, transparency and responsible decision-making can serve as a bulwark against the worst excesses. The way things are going, the answer is probably no.” </em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="xraargu/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +45 2360 0631</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer </p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li> <p>You can read the full report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">here</a>.</p> </li> <li> <p>The Omnibus proposals, introduced in 2025, bundle together changes to dozens of EU laws and allow for rapid deregulation.</p> </li> <li> <p>You can read Corporate Europe Observatory’s analysis of the latest developments in the deregulation agenda on <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a>. </p> </li> <li> <p>In November 2025, Corporate Europe Observatory <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">exposed</a> the year-long campaign by industry to push for digital deregulation. </p> </li> <li> <p>In September 2025, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/eu-weakens-rules-safeguard-people-and-environment">470 groups urged the EU</a> not to weaken the rules that safeguard people and the environment. </p> </li> <li> <p>In July 2025, Corporate Europe Observatory published an <a href="///Users/marci/Desktop/•%09https:/corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">article</a> explaining the basic scheme behind the EU’s deregulation agenda.</p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks" hreflang="en">This is what corporate capture looks like!</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.03.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Data pack - This is what corporate capture looks like.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Data%20pack%20-%20This%20is%20what%20corporate%20capture%20looks%20like.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Data pack - This is what corporate capture looks like.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>This is what corporate capture looks like!</h1> <p>Kenneth Haar — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 22:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Report: How corporations run the EU deregulation agenda </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Where do the EU deregulation laws come from? From extensive talks between the European Commission and business groups, often in opaque new types of dialogue, according to the report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">“This is what corporate capture looks like!”</a></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU is on an unprecedented deregulation track. Scores of achievements in environmental regulation, social rights, digital rights, and climate policies, are being rolled back swiftly and systematically. In <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">a new report</a> titled “This is what corporate capture looks like”, Corporate Europe Observatory shows how this so-called ‘simplification agenda’, is a cooperative endeavour between European Commissioners and lobby groups.</p> <p>While deregulation campaigns are nothing new to Brussels politics, this one stands out with its scope and methodology: strong obligations are imposed on all EU Commissioners to deliver on deregulation, and it is set to last for years. Corporate lobbyists and other business representatives are invited in to take a major role. </p> <p>In the report we show how a high level of ‘corporate capture” can be seen in the many meetings Commissioners have had with business representatives, and in the two new types of dialogue set up to move the deregulation strategy forward, the so-called Implementation Dialogues and the Reality Checks, both of which are dominated by business representatives. </p> <p>The result is an avalanche of proposals for deregulation, tabled by the European Commission in the form of so-called Omnibuses, ten of which were presented in 2025. And a careful look at them, shows how the main proposals can be traced back to demands from particular companies or lobby groups. </p> <p>In sum, this ‘simplification agenda’ – this deregulation campaign – risks paving the way for an even stronger role for corporate lobby groups in the European Union in the future. We need strategies to prevent that from happening, that include defence of existing ethical standards, measures to stop and roll-back corporate capture, and a broad-based campaign to defend and expand regulation in the public interest. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Here's a webinar by Kenneth Haar, main author of the report, summarising its key findings:</em></p><p></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.03.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.07.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave" hreflang="en">A crash course on the EU’s deregulation wave</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">21.11.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/11/16-steps-towards-deregulation" hreflang="en">16 steps towards deregulation </a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>The Pollution Playbook: How industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals</h1> <p>Joana — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:07:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New episode of EU Watchdog Radio </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">26.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides & GMOs</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Check out our new podcast episode with Nina Holland, Rachel Radvany and Olivier de Schutter.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In this episode, Joana talks Nina Holland, agribiz researcher and campaigner at CEO, to Rachel Radvany, environmental health campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and to Olivier De Schutter, legal scholar and university professor specialising in economic and social rights, who served served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food from 2008 to 2014 and, in 2020 was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.</p> <p>Together with CIEL, CEO launched a briefing into how the industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals. It’s called “<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">⁠The pollution playbook⁠</a>”. What a great episode!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Who we are</strong></h3> <p>This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech & chemical companies, the financial sector & public investment banks, trade, energy & climate, scientific research and much more…</p> <p>You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Blog</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/blog/EU-watchdog-radio" hreflang="en">EU Watchdog Radio</a></div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Inside the far-right network targeting Europe’s digital rules</h1> <p>Bram Vranken — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">25.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">The Trump administration and a network of far-right think tanks are increasingly targeting the EU’s digital regulations and rules on content moderation. Far-right MEPs have taken over these narratives, while tech companies are hoping to exploit the opportunity.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em><strong>This article was written and published by </strong></em><a href="https://multinationales.org/fr/enquetes/extreme-tech/trump-big-tech-rn-que-cachent-les-attaques-de-la-galaxie-reactionnaire-sur-la"><em><strong>Observatoire des Multinationales</strong></em></a><em><strong>. The article has been translated and updated.</strong></em></p> <p lang="fr-FR">In December 2025, Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">called on X</a> for the abolition of the EU, comparing it to Nazi Germany. This followed the European Commission fining Musk's social media platform for a lack of transparency regarding its algorithms, as well as for the misleading use of the blue check verification mark. A few days later, in retaliation, former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four NGO members combating hate speech were barred from entering the United States.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Together with its Big Tech allies, and far-right think tanks, the Trump administration has launched a full-scale attack on the EU's digital rules</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">This was only the latest in a series of wide-ranging attacks by the Trump administration, its tech sector allies, and US far-right think tanks on EU digital regulations, especially on the Digital Services Act (DSA), which sets out a framework for content moderation on social media. These attacks are supported in Brussels by conservative organisations close to the Hungarian government, Christian fundamentalists and by far-right MEPs. On 2 and 3 February this year, the Patriots for Europe group, chaired by Jordan Bardella, co-hosted a transatlantic summit in the European Parliament with several figures from the MAGA sphere and the international far-right discussing what they describe as threats to “free expression”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Online moderation: from consensus to attacks</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">The objectives of the DSA are widely supported and no significant objections were raised when it was adopted. According to an October 2025 YouGov opinion poll, 53% of French respondents said that social media are not sufficiently regulated, while only 6% felt they are unduly restricted. Over the past years, there have been numerous social media scandals, including the sale of child-like sex dolls by the Chinese e-commerce giant Shein, online harassment, pictures of people being undressed by the AI chat-bot Grok, and harmful <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/tiktok-risks-pushing-children-towards-harmful-content/">TikTok content </a>for teenagers. There have also been disinformation campaigns by third countries, such as Russia, detected on X or Facebook.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The DSA essentially creates procedural obligations. Initially, we had little interest in it as it was not game-changing,” says Bastien le Querrec, a lawyer for La Quadrature du Net, a French association focusing on online rights and freedoms. The regulation puts obligations on platforms to have transparent flagging and content moderation systems, which many already had. It bans targeted advertising to minors and other misleading practices. It also requires major platforms to analyse the systemic risks they generate with regard to online hate speech and violence, fundamental rights (including freedom of speech), and electoral processes. In 2022, the DSA was adopted unanimously by the European Council and by more than 80% of Members of the European Parliament, with far-right MEPs abstaining or voting against. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">The DSA did not present a major problem for Big Tech firms either. “When the DSA was passed, Big Tech companies were positive about the legislation. […] There were a lot of rules in the DSA that they were fine with. It was not very costly, moderation measures were already in place, and it was customary to request greater control over what was happening there”, says Jan Penfrat, a Senior policy advisor at European Digital Rights (EDRi). “These companies support laws depending on what costs them money, but also in terms of what is politically opportune. And at the time that the DSA was negotiated, being in favor of online safety and against digital violence was very popular. So companies made sure they looked engaged in this field.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Everything changed when Donald Trump returned to power. He has been very vocal against content moderation policies ever since his Facebook and Twitter accounts were suspended following the Capitol riots in 2021. On the very day of his inauguration, he signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/">executive order</a> called “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” prohibiting the administration from fighting disinformation. A few weeks earlier, Mark Zuckerberg had <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSHpYHncNxw">announced</a> the end of moderation on his social media platforms, stating that “Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship”. “Attacking the DSA and moderation on social media might have seemed like a good way of getting closer to Trump,” says Bram Vranken, a Researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>‘Freedom of speech’: a new MAGA imperialism tool </strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The censorship narrative is repeated on a daily basis on Fox News, on X… When the UK opens an investigation because Grok undresses children online, Elon Musk will say it is censorship,” says Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a think tank that gets funding from digital giants including Google and Meta.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“I make a distinction between ‘normal’ digital giants and another very Trumpist component in this sector,” he says. “Those who say they are libertarian, like Thiel, Sacks or Lonsdale, are mad. And they have funded an entire ecosystem of organisations such as the Federalist Society and the Internet Accountability Project to promote their ideas.” <span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content"> Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir, David Sachs, a tech venture capitalist and the White House AI and crypto czar, and Joe Lonsdale, also a tech venture capitalist and the founder of the right-wing think tank Cicero Institute. <span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content"></span></span></span></span></p> <p>According to them, the main reason why these (anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ+ and pro-birth) ideas have so little resonance among the general public is because they are censored on online platforms, as a result of the influence wielded by ‘progressive’ elites they want to do away with.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">This is precisely the narrative that the Trump administration is trying to impose, presenting itself as a champion of liberty against a European Union it says is adrift. But while the Trump administration has opened fire on the Digital Services Act, at home it has launched a chilling and blistering attack on free speech, from putting pressure on media to <a href="https://time.com/7318661/jimmy-kimmel-cancelled-trump-fired-colbert/">silence</a> critical voices, to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2jnyy2yyo">opening criminal investigations</a> against critics and political opponents.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">While the Trump administration has opened fire on the Digital Services Act, at home it has launched a chilling and blistering attack on free speech</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">The new <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf">National Security Strategy</a>, released at the end of last year, clearly indicates the aim to support far-right parties in Europe (“the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism”), while promoting the conspiracy and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory (“within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European”). </p> <p lang="fr-FR">“To justify such a thing, they need to claim moral superiority, they need to be able to portray themselves as the ‘good guys’, Berin Szoka points out. “If you want to be able to say that the US supports a “resistance” in Europe – and that resistance is actually the far-right - you need to say that the other parties are going after free speech.” At the Munich Conference in February 2025, JD Vance stunned Europeans by attacking them head-on about what he described as the rollback of freedom of speech on the continent. According to this narrative, the US far right is not trying to impose its climate scepticism, its anti-immigration and anti-social model on Europe, but is merely defending Europeans against censorship. </p> <p>Since the Munich Security Conference, the Trump administration has only increased its attacks on the Digital Services Act. According to a Reuters report, in the summer of 2025, the White House instructed its diplomats to launch a lobbying campaign against the DSA. In July, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee had just released an interim report entitled “The Foreign Censorship Threat: How the European Union’s Digital Services Act Compels Global Censorship and Infringes on American Free Speech” under the chairmanship of Jim Jordan, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. In January 2026, US embassies in Europe simultaneously posted a series of messages on their social media quoting Secretary of State Marco Rubio as saying: “We are concerned that freedom of expression in Europe is eroding”.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In February 2026, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee published a second report on “foreign censorship” that also targeted European NGOs. These claims were quickly <a href="https://netchoice.org/netchoice-praises-house-judiciary-leadership-to-end-foreign-censorship-of-americans/">amplified</a> by Big Tech lobby groups such as NetChoice.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Far-right US think tanks at the forefront</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Far-right think tanks are playing an important role in the US campaign against EU digital rules. The Claremont Institute, a longstanding supporter of Trump, <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/make-speech-free-again/">published</a> a <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/make-speech-free-again/">long rant</a> against the Digital Services Act in 2025 entitled “Make Speech Free Again”. The think tank is one of the organisers of the National Conservatism Conferences (NatCons), which are also supported by Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir among other companies. According to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/how-the-claremont-institute-became-a-power-center-in-trumps-washington-00700147"><em>Politico</em></a>, at least 70 alumni of the Claremont Institute Fellowship serve in the Trump administration. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">The Heritage Foundation, the think tank that coordinated Project 2025 and has effectively become an extension of the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europe-wants-be-the-worlds-speech-police">has also</a> amplified the view that Europe is eager to act as a global censor and that the DSA is <a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europes-center-right-turns-censorious-against-america">politically </a>motivated (“The EU’s Digital Services Act is being used to limit new right-wing parties from bypassing old political powers.”). </p> <p lang="fr-FR">The Heritage Foundation has also been tasked by the Trump administration to select EU-based think tanks that would get funding from the US government. The aim: to target the UK’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">If more evidence were needed of conservative alignment on this issue, in January 2026 the America First Policy Institute, a think tank set up by the first Trump administration and which <a href="https://www.france24.com/fr/am%C3%A9riques/20241125-%C3%A9tats-unis-think-tank-america-first-policy-institute-discr%C3%A8te-machine-de-combat-au-service-de-donald-trump">provided</a> several members of the second Trump administration, posted a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=966091766099800">video</a> on social media accusing “the EU unelected bureaucrats [of wanting] to crush our free speech” by targeting the DSA explicitly. The fine against X and Elon Musk is presented as an attack by Europeans against ‘the Americans’.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Groundless allegations against the DSA</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The DSA is not going to impose EU rules across the world. Platforms know how to adapt moderation to the various regions of the globe. They have been doing just that. And the DSA is not a threat to freedom of speech. This is a cliche used by the far right to impose its narrative,” says Bastien le Querrec from La Quadrature du Net. “It does not change anything as regards what is lawful online and what is not. That is a matter for national legislation and case law.” Dozens of scholars and academics put forward the same argument in a <a href="https://husovec.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/US-Academic-Letter-DSA-Censorship.pdf">letter to the </a>Republican representative Jim Jordan following the release of his report. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Nevertheless, the US offensive against EU social media rules is widely picked up by far-right parties in Europe, particularly the National Rally. The Patriots for Europe group has launched an <a href="https://www.vudeurope.eu/petition/dsa-la-liberte-dexpression-menacee-par-bruxelles">online petition</a> accusing the DSA of censoring “some views in the name of the fight against disinformation and hate speech” (see the table “DSA: true or false” at the end of this piece ).</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">The US offensive against EU social media rules is widely picked up by far-right parties in Europe</p> </blockquote> <p>In the absence of any solid proof that the DSA leads to censorship, right-wing voices have highlighted legal proceedings, some of which are controversial, that are not linked to the DSA. This includes a court proceeding against the Finnish MP Paivi Rasanen for a tweet in June 2019, three years before the EU regulation was adopted. She criticised the Lutheran Church of Finland for supporting the Gay Pride, using the words ‘shame’ and ‘sin’ in connection with homosexuality. She was prosecuted in Finland under the national law on hate speech. The charges were eventually dropped.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Although freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Europe, it must be balanced with other rights, including the right not to be discriminated against. This approach explains why there are laws that penalise racist and revisionist views. In some cases, in the EU as well as the US, human <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and">rights organisations </a>have criticised governments for unduly limiting freedom of expression through anti-terrorism laws, for instance, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/10/07/human-rights-ngos-say-social-media-platforms-continue-to-censor-pro-palestine-content">to censor pro-Palestinian voices</a>. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">“In some countries, there are laws that unduly restrict freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with the DSA, but Republicans will exploit it,” says Berin Szoka. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">“They are also making use of Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk, in August 2024, before his interview with Donald Trump on X.” Breton, a European Commissioner at the time, urged the owner of X to ensure that the platform adhered to the DSA, as he organised an online debate with the Republican candidate for the presidential election. Breton’s statements received a lot of <a href="https://euractiv.fr/news/les-defenseurs-de-la-liberte-dexpression-critiquent-thierry-breton-apres-sa-lettre-a-elon-musk/">fire</a> from academics and civil society organisations in Europe. The DSA only applies to formal specifications relating to design (interfaces and algorithms), and the European Commission can only implement measures that are “neutral with regard to content”. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Orbán supporters and Christian fundamentalists</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">In addition to the aggressive campaign by the Trump administration and MAGA think tanks, attacks on alleged EU censorship are being carried out in the very heart of the EU, including by outfits that have little to do with Big Tech, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International. This ultra-reactionary Christian organisation was set up in the United States in 1994. <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/files/adf_-amicusbrief_lawrence_v_texas.pdf">According to the NGO Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, ADF fights abortion and gay marriage, and campaigns for homosexuality to be criminalised. Commenting on this piece, ADF International denied having ever advocated for the criminalisation of homosexuality.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Attacks on alleged EU censorship are being carried out in the very heart of the EU, including by outfits that have little to do with Big Tech, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">With an <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541660459">official budget</a> of more than 110 million dollars in 2024, it was behind the Supreme Court’s ruling to revoke abortion rights at the federal level in 2022. In 2024, its international branch in Brussels declared an annual <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_fr?id=69403354038-78">budget</a> of more than one million euros. “ADF’s expenditure in Europe has soared since 2018,” Kenneth Haar, a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, confirmed. “We get the impression that the DSA is now their favourite target, which is relatively new”.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">ADF expresses criticism similar to that of MAGA think tanks and JD Vance. In fact, the organisation appears to be very closely aligned with Trump’s sphere of influence. In 2020, Michael Farris, who was then president of the ADF, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/us/politics/religious-conservative-michael-farris-lawsuit-2020-election.html?fbclid=IwAR3VYtNkzlalSvDsJo5TRQ9gUkhsdKHDh6mp_GiBSdqDO5oF53Z7NzeVru0">worked on appeals</a> to challenge the election results lost by Donald Trump. The association also participated in Project 2025, and its current president, Kristen Waggoner, was <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/president-donald-trump-names-advisory-board-members-to-the-religious-liverty-commission/">appointed by Donald Trump</a> to the US administration’s Advisory Board to the Religious Liberty Commission. An ADF International spokesperson told us that the organisation is non-partisan and that it works with people across the political spectrum. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Another vocal critic of the DSA is the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) Brussels. The Hungarian organisation set up a branch in the EU capital in late 2022 and has an annual record budget of more than 6 million euros. In May 2025, the MCC released a report critical of the fight against disinformation, likening it to propaganda against free speech. In a <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/news/manufacturing-misinformation-the-eu-funded-propaganda-war-against-free-speech-1">press release</a>, it accused the EU of creating moral panic around “disinformation” and “hate speech” to further regulate online speech “under the guise of the Digital Services Act”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">“MCC Brussels is ideologically oriented, they are anti-EU,” says Jan Penfrat. He stresses that it is a far-right political organisation and not a think tank that would draw upon genuine research. A few months ago, MCC introduced in Washington <a href="https://multinationales.org/fr/enquetes/deregulations-made-in-europe/mcc-brussels-ou-comment-l-extreme-droite-pro-orban-et-pro-trump-s-organise-pour">a plan </a>to dismantle the European Union. “Their opposition to the DSA is either about Hungary, which sees the Commission as a nuisance that needs tackling, or to support their US ally. Trump’s greatest allies in Brussels are Orban’s supporters,” Kenneth Haar points out.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In April 2025, MCC <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/news/mcc-brussels-files-complaint-with-european-ombudsman-over-eu-commissions-concealment-of-dsa-proceedings-on-romanian-presidential-elections">lodged</a> a complaint with the EU Ombudswoman about the Commission’s alleged lack of transparency regarding its investigation into TikTok’s activities before the 2024 Romanian elections. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">While the Commission may be investigating, but the annulment of the elections was decided by Romania’s Constitutional Court based on information from its intelligence services. On X, Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1877948465516257646?s=20">shared a post</a> suggesting that the EU was behind the decision, alongside a truncated interview with Thierry Breton. The misleading video clip was then picked up by Jordan Bardella <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffusBEesmy8">in a video</a>, and is regularly disseminated by National Rally MEP Virginie Joron in her <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2024-12-17-INT-2017008850532_FR.html">speeches</a> at the European Parliament, on her <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1906302846634934">social media</a>, and in interviews on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66XEkJ8zr-I">MCC Brussels podcast</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Virginie Joron, an outspoken critic of the DSA in Brussels</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Both ADF International and MCC Brussels can count on far-right MEPs to amplify their messages. Among French MPs, they can count on Virginie Joron, who is running for mayor of Strasbourg in the March 2026 municipal elections. On 21 May, Joron delivered a speech at an ADF International symposium entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats<em> </em>to Freedom of Expression” at the European Parliament, where she was joined by Reconquest MEP Marion Maréchal. In October 2025, ADF International released an <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">open letter</a> criticising what it described as the DSA as a dangerous censorship regime. The letter was signed by more than a hundred conservative and far-right figures, including Rod Dreher, who has ties to JD Vance and is an associate of the Budapest Institute, another organisation linked to the Orbán regime and Trumpian spheres. Virginie Joron, Angeline Furet (National Rally), and Laurence Trochu (Reconquest, led by Éric Zemmour) are also among the signatories.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In May 2025, fellows of the Tocqueville Scholarship, which provides training on how to use US ultra-conservative tactics to some of France’s future conservative leaders, <a href="///%5C%5CUsers%5CDownloads%5CNous%20avons%20ensuite%20rejoint%20nos%20amis%20d%E2%80%99ADF%20International%20au%20Parlement%20europ%C3%A9en%20pour%20une%20discussion%20de%20fond%20sur%20les%20enjeux%20du%20Digital%20Services%20Act,%20avant%20de%20participer%20%C3%A0%20une%20r%C3%A9union%20strat%C3%A9gique%20sur%20les%20liens%20transatlantiques%20organis%C3%A9e%20par%20The%20Heritage%20Foundation.%20https:%5Cwww.instagram.com%5Cp%5CDJ-AkvBon6y%5C%3Fhl=en&img_index=2">met</a> members of ADF International in Brussels in May 2025. The agenda included “an in-depth conversation about the issues at stake with regard to the Digital Services Act”. They then discussed transatlantic relations with representatives of the Heritage Foundation.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In June 2025, Virginie Joron, together with National Rally MEP, <a href="https://x.com/GrisetCatherine/status/1932801387391562038?s=20">Catherine Griset</a>, attended an event organised by MCC Brussels. It was called “The DSA, NGOs and the EU Propaganda Machine”. The conference took place within the European Parliament as it was co-hosted by MCC and two parliamentary groups, Patriots for Europe (chaired by Jordan Bardella) and European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The third far-right group in the European Parliament, Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), which includes Reconquest’s Sarah Knafo [Eric Zemmour’s partner]. Like the ECR, the ESN describes the DSA as a censorship tool and <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/melonis-ecr-refuses-to-support-thierry-breton-after-us-sanctions/">has refused</a> to support Thierry Breton following last December’s US sanctions against him. Far-right MEP Catherine Griset made it clear that she has aligned herself with the MAGA rhetoric and Trumpist stances when she <a href="https://x.com/GrisetCatherine/status/2003765210751152408?s=20">said</a>: “The United States is breaking away from Europe over censorship”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Social media, a major political issue</strong></p> <p>The far right’s alignment with the Trumpist narrative can be explained in part by the new US National Security Strategy’s explicit support for ‘patriotic’ parties in Europe. Their virulent objection to the principle of online content moderation also involves more immediate interests. Discriminatory statements and incitement to hatred are banned by French law, and several far-right party officials have been prosecuted.</p> <blockquote><p>The far right’s alignment with the Trumpist narrative can be explained in part by the new US National Security Strategy’s explicit support for ‘patriotic’ parties in Europe</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">Again, the DSA is not designed to target specific content. In fact, it provides for appeal procedures in the event of content being removed. Nevertheless, the DSA is targeted on a regular basis, as shown by a <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001546_FR.html">parliamentary question</a> from Sarah Knafo and a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/laurence.trochu/reel/DABvjtZMCdR/?locale=ne_NP&hl=ar">speech in the </a>EU Parliament delivered by the French far-right MEP Laurence Trochu. Far-right voices often invoke Trumpist slogans about onslaughts on ‘free speech’ when reacting to the dissolution of organisations inciting hatred, such as Generation Identitaire, or to the broadcasting ban imposed on French TV channel C8 for failing to comply with its obligations towards Arcom, France’s broadcasting and digital authority. French MEPs from the three groups, along with other far-right figures, signed an <a href="https://asla.fr/censure-numerique-notre-tribune-signee-par-pres-de-50-elus-et-personnalites/">opinion piece in French weekly <em>Valeurs actuelles</em></a>, written by the ASLA collective - an offshoot of the dissolved Generation Identitaire, which was banned for hate speech - where they suggest that several far-right groups' accounts (Nemesis, Frontières…) have been suspended because of the DSA. Far-right magazine <em>Frontières</em> ran the headline “Censorship: Totalitarian Temptation” in its first quarter issue for 2026.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“These parties are very active on social media. It’s their main way of communicating,” Bram Vranken says. For this reason, they may fear rules creating a framework for social media, including on algorithmic content amplification. In February 2025, an <a href="https://www.franceinfo.fr/internet/reseaux-sociaux/allemagne-les-contenus-politiques-de-droite-et-d-extreme-droite-surrepresentes-sur-tiktok-et-x-selon-l-etude-d-une-ong-qui-appelle-l-ue-a-enqueter_7086177.html">investigation by NGO Global Witness</a> concluded that ahead of the parliamentary elections in Germany, right and far right contents were favoured on X and TikTok.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“It took us a long time to regulate allotted time in the mainstream media, to make sure election candidates have equal speaking time on television and radio, even if things are far from perfect,” says Green MEP David Cormand. “Exposure is increasing, including for traditional media. The visibility of their contents also depends on their presence on social media. Therefore, there is a lot at stake should the rules of equity, transparency, and pluralism governing access to information also apply to social media, which is not the case right now.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The DSA establishes principles on content moderation and ‘system risk’ reduction, including restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as the negative impact on elections and public debate. But its implementation by the Commission is actually still tentative. Several inquiries have been launched, but only one final ruling has been made – the fine against X. Jan Panfret says, “There is undoubtedly an issue about a lack of resources, as well as some kind of political pressure from outside the EU, but also from inside. They also know that the companies facing them will challenge decisions in court. Therefore, they cannot afford to make mistakes, and they are very cautious”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Convergence between tech multinationals and the far right</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">It is hard to say whether digital multinationals would benefit financially from attacks on the DSA. ‘Toxic’ content can generate more interactions and, as a result, enhance data collection and increase profit. However, advertisers may be reluctant to use platforms that are out of control. X’s advertising revenues <a href="https://www.marketingweek.com/x-2024-revenue-brand-safety-musk/">plummeted</a> after Elon Musk took over. The alignment of Meta and Google with the US administration’s anti-DSA narrative and rhetoric against censorship is an indirect strategy to pursue their economic interests. The tech giants that have gained favor with Donald Trump have obtained, for example, national-level AI deregulation, by the US government <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defending-american-companies-and-innovators-from-overseas-extortion-and-unfair-fines-and-penalties/?ref=platformer.news">threatening</a> to take retaliatory measures against countries that introduce taxes on digital services or impose fines on “state-of-the-art US tech companies”. India and Canada have already yielded to this pressure and dropped their taxes.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">The alignment of Meta and Google with the US administration’s anti-DSA narrative and rhetoric against censorship is an indirect strategy to pursue their economic interests</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">Yet many EU regulations are a thorn in the eye of tech multinationals. “During its previous mandate, the EU tried to make a ‘tech deal,’ a package of digital legal texts based in part on specific EU standards such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),” says David Cormand. These include the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is designed to fight digital giants’ anti-competitive practices, and the AI Act, which establishes a framework for the use and development of Artificial Intelligence. By joining forces with the Trump administration against the DSA, Big Tech knows it can rely on the Trump administration to put pressure on EU legislation as well.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Head of Public Affairs of Google France joined at a dinner party in Strasbourg hosted by six MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National.</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Souce: Instagram</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">They can also count on the support of the European far right, which has already expressed support for the Digital Omnibus, a Commission proposal aimed at weakening the GDPR and the AI Act. Since the start of the parliamentary term in June 2024, Meta has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Meta%20lobby%20meetings%20with%20ECR%2C%20PfE%2C%20ESN.png">met</a> fifty-five times with MEPs from European Conservatives and Reformists, Patriots for Europe, and Europe of Sovereign Nations (as of the time of publication). Since August 2025, Meta has had the <a href="https://www.integritywatch.eu/mepmeetings.php">most meetings with the far-right Patriots for Europe</a>, more than with the far larger right-wing EPP party. Just a few days after the Digital Omnibus was proposed by the Commission, the Head of Public Affairs of Google France <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DRfV_JpDdhf/?img_index=3">attended a dinner</a> in Strasbourg hosted by six National Rally MEPs, including Virginie Joron.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Since the start of the parliamentary term in June 2024, Meta has met fifty-five times with far-right MEPs</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">In 2021, Jordan Bardella submitted a <a href="https://politique.pappers.fr/question/digital-services-act-strategie-agressive-lobbying-google-QECR892254">written question</a> to the European Commission to express his concern about what he described as Google’s “aggressive lobbying”… against the DSA. He has come a long way since then. The main objective of the far right in Europe seems to be to align itself with the Trump administration and the interests of US multinational corporations. This wouldn’t be the first time. As early as 2025, the European far right was acting as a <a href="https://www.somo.nl/the-secretive-cabal-of-us-polluters-that-is-rewriting-the-eus-human-rights-and-climate-law/">Trojan horse</a> for US fossil fuel interests, weakening the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><table> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2">DSA: True or false?</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA makes it possible to censor online content</strong></td> <td><strong>Yes and no</strong>. The DSA is not designed to take content offline, except if it is illegal under existing national or EU laws. On the contrary, the DSA gives the right to users to challenge platforms content moderation decisions. Platforms are obliged to give detailed explanations why they block accounts or take content offline.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>It is the European Commission that decides whether to censor online contents</strong></td> <td> <p><strong>No</strong>. Platforms are responsible for content moderation. The DSA does impose procedural obligations on platforms to properly address illegal content based on national and EU law. </p> <p>Additionally, the DSA reinforces a ban on general monitoring, which means that they are not obliged to proactively monitor all posts from users for illegal content.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Online censorship stems from political decisions</strong></td> <td><strong>In theory, no</strong>. States decide what is lawful and what is not. Some states may unduly restrict free speech. Appeals against these national laws can be lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. International treaties protect the right to freedom of expression.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Only conservative contents are censored</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Fundamental rights in the EU do not make it possible to censor content on the basis of political affiliation. If platforms chose to remove content based on the political views expressed, such decisions could be challenged in court. Platforms have a long history of moderating content by amplifying, demoting (by shadow-banning for instance) or taking certain content offline. For instance, in December 2025, Meta is reported to have suspended accounts that were linked to abortion advice and queer content. Also pro-Palestinian accounts have faced systemic censorship on Facebook and Instagram. The DSA imposes obligations on platforms to guarantees that content moderation decisions are transparent and can be challenged in case they violate the freedom of expression. These transparency requirement also cover demands from governments for taking content offline. The DSA also gives users the right to seek out-of-court settlements with specifically established bodies.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The EU is going to impose its free speech rules across the world</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Platforms know how to introduce regional moderation rules. They have been doing just that because countries do not have the same rules regarding what is lawful.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Trusted flaggers are paid by governments and will censor contents unfavourable to the government</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Platforms know how to introduce regional moderation rules. They have been doing just that because countries do not have the same rules regarding what is lawful.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA imposes an obligation to prevent “systemic risks” which may lead to censorship</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Trusted flaggers – organisations that may receive public funding – do not decide whether to remove content. The platform does. Their status only means that their flagging is processed as a matter of priority, given their expertise in detecting unlawful content such as incitement to hatred and discrimination.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA imposes an obligation to prevent “systemic risks” which may lead to censorship</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. The Commission can only implement measures that are content-agnostic. The DSA obliges the largest platforms to take steps to prevent systemic risks, including threats to fundamental rights or to elections. Platforms must assess how the design of their products, including algorithmic systems, can pose risks to society and take preventive measures. Furthermore, the DSA grants research organisations and journalists the possibility to request data from large platforms to guarantee external scrutiny on how these platforms operate.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The EU used the DSA to have the elections annulled in Romania in 2024</strong></td> <td><strong>False</strong>. The results of the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections were annulled by the country’s Constitutional Court on the basis of information provided by Romania’s intelligence services regarding suspected Russian interference. The Commission has launched an investigation into TikTok to determine whether the platform has complied with its obligations under the DSA with regard to recommendation systems and targeted advertising rules. The investigation may result in TikTok being fined.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.04.2022</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/04/big-techs-last-minute-attempt-tame-eu-tech-rules" hreflang="en">Big Tech’s last minute attempt to tame EU tech rules</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">18.01.2022</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/01/how-corporate-lobbying-undermined-eus-push-ban-surveillance-ads" hreflang="en">How corporate lobbying undermined the EU’s push to ban surveillance ads</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>70 civil society organisations urge MEPs to focus on electricity grids, and cut hydrogen and gas pipelines from EU priority energy infrastructure list</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:33:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr"><strong>Brussels, 23 March 2026 </strong>- Ahead of the European Parliament plenary vote on 26 March 2026 on an objection to the delegated act setting out the second list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMIs), 70 civil society organisations have called on parliamentarians to reject the list in its current form. <a href="https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Open-letter-to-MEPs_-say-no-to-the-PCI_PMI-list-3.pdf">In an open letter published today</a>, the groups are calling on the Commission to present a revised list of projects focused exclusively on electricity grids that support rapid electrification in line with the EU’s climate and energy objectives.</p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">The letter’s signatories warn that the proposed list – which prioritises energy infrastructure under the EU’s Trans-European Network – Energy (TEN-E) Regulation – would allow fast-track permitting and access to EU public funding for more than 100 hydrogen infrastructure projects, most of them pipelines, and two controversial fossil gas pipelines (<strong>Melita and EastMed</strong>), altogether costing more than EUR 80 billion. </p> <p dir="ltr">The organisations question the necessity and feasibility of the large-scale hydrogen infrastructure proposed. These projects risk locking the EU into continued dependence on fossil gas-based hydrogen while diverting funding away from the electrification of Europe’s energy system. The organisations particularly emphasise the environmental and social impacts of major hydrogen corridors such as <strong>H2Med</strong> and <strong>SouthH2</strong>.</p> <p dir="ltr">The letter further reiterates concerns raised by the EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) about the credibility and transparency of the project selection process. The excessive power granted to the gas lobby ENTSOG in project selection, while its members profit from PCI status, creates a serious conflict of interest.</p> <p dir="ltr">The signatories also warn against the EU relying on imports of renewable hydrogen from the Global South to meet<strong> </strong>its unrealistic targets – a strategy which ignores major economic, logistical, and social constraints. The letter stresses that large-scale hydrogen export projects risk exacerbating water scarcity, diverting renewable energy from local needs, and creating new forms of resource dependency rather than supporting a just global energy transition.</p> <p dir="ltr">As current international events demonstrate, such as the oil and gas price shocks, the EU cannot hope to strengthen its energy sovereignty by importing large quantities of energy, whether hydrogen or fossil fuels. The EU must step up its efforts towards electrification, rather than investing in projects that are doomed to become stranded assets.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>For press inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Elena Gerebizza</strong>, Energy and infrastructure campaigner, ReCommon</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="rtrerovmmn/ng/erpbzzba/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> <p dir="ltr">+39 340 6705319</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Eliot Garnier-Karcenti</strong>, Senior Energy Advisor, Food & Water Action Europe</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="rtneavrexnepragv/ng/sjrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a> </p> <p dir="ltr">+33 6 34 31 56 20</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Gligor Radečić</strong>, Gas Campaign Leader, CEE Bankwatch Network </p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="tyvtbe/qbg/enqrpvp/ng/onaxjngpu/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a> </p> <p dir="ltr">+385 97 7 45 44 67 </p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Pascoe Sabido</strong>, Corporate Europe Observatory Researcher and Campaigner</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="cnfpbr/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a> </p> <p dir="ltr">+44 7969 665 189</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Sign now: Reject the Food-Feed Omnibus</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:03:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Stand up for better pesticide safeguards - for health, bees and farmers </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">22.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The EU is planning to weaken the pesticide law. </strong>The <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/eu-legislation/food-and-feed-safety-omnibus-weaker-protection">Food and Feed Omnibus proposal</a> would scrap the regular renewal process for pesticide authorization for most substances, and make it more difficult for new evidence of harm from pesticide products to be used by EU member states. </p> <p>Right now, the EU countries are discussing the proposal. Some are trying to make it even worse. You can help: speak out now and tell the politicians to take a turn in the right direction.<br><br><strong>Send a message via the form on this page, then spread the word! </strong></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><script src="https://widget.proca.app/d/health_bees_farmers/ceo" async></script></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Deregulation Watch</h1> <p>Joana — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 23:01:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Helping civil society monitor the deregulation agenda </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/single-market" hreflang="en">Single market</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Commission President von der Leyen has made very clear that the EU’s priority for the next five years will be to boost industry’s "competitiveness", including through deregulation of EU rules that industry perceives as burdensome. <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">This deregulation campaign</a> includes roll-back of existing social and environmental standards, more hurdles for new progressive EU regulation, escape routes allowing companies to avoid regulation, as well as new hurdles for national level regulation.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Von der Leyen’s deregulation agenda was heavily inspired by <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">corporate lobbying campaigns</a> and it now provides unprecedented opportunities for corporate lobby groups to determine the shape of future EU legislation and roll back social and environmental standards in existing EU laws.</p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory has set up Deregulation Watch to help civil society monitor new developments in the deregulation agenda, assess what’s at stake, and organise in defense of strong social, environmental and human rights protections. </p> <p><em>We would be grateful for any insights on the EU deregulation offensive, including on corporate lobbying activities, that you may want to share with us. Insights can be sent to </em><a href="#" data-mail-to="prb/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h1 style="display:none;">Deregulation Monitor</h1><h1 style="display:none;">Deregulation Watch</h1></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG">Click here for more info on the European Commission’s omnibus packages.</a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>The EU’s 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap': a gargantuan deregulation push that’s leading Europe down a dead end (27 April 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li> the European Parliament and governments secured significant last minute changes to the Commission’s draft 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap', signed during last week's EU summit in Cyprus</li> <li>quite a few terrible deregulation commitments that were in the draft roadmap were removed during last-minute talks</li> <li>but the Commission got green light for Single Market deregulation on ten areas – and by signing the roadmap, parliament and governments have agreed to rush Omnibuses, "EU Inc" and a huge number of other deregulation initiatives through EU decision-making at unprecedented speed</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>In the run-up to the Cyprus summit the EU, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/exclusive-eu-rolls-back-ambition-in-new-single-market-plan/">as Euractiv put it</a>, "radically scaled down the ambition" of <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5445de81-9481-4335-9902-9756159ba614_en?filename=one-europe-one-market-roadmap.pdf">the “One Europe, One Market” roadmap</a>. The Commission’s proposal to include binding "targets for final adoption" of deregulation initiatives was "downgraded to target dates for reaching a political agreement". Due to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/ukraine-upstages-middle-east-at-eu-summit/">pressure from progressive MEPs</a> references to the “European Pillar of social rights” and a future review “to encompass the social dimension of the Single Market” were added to the roadmap. Some deeply problematic proposals originating from the list of demands presented by hard-right government leaders Merz and Meloni earlier this year (see Deregulation Watch <strong>March 13<sup>th</sup> 2026) </strong>were removed from the roadmap.</p> <p>In the draft roadmap, the three EU institutions were to “commit to a structural reduction of administrative burdens” as well as seven specific commitments, such as ”refraining from introducing new obstacles or barriers, including through goldplating and unduly divergent national approaches”. A blanket promise to refrain from 'new obstacles or barriers' would have been hugely problematic, because what constitutes an ‘obstacle’ or ‘barrier’ in the Single Market is often a matter of political interpretation. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf">Corporate lobby groups routinely file complaints</a> against entirely legitimate national government rules on social or environmental protection, arguing these are Single Market 'barriers' that should be removed, expecting the European Commission to intervene. One example is the Commission’s intervention against the French government’s new law to tackle the growing problem of hugely wasteful and polluting 'fast fashion'. Following complaints by corporate lobby groups, the Commission paused the final adoption of the French law until changes are made. In <a href="https://eeb.org/en/eu-commission-must-not-curtail-member-states-from-taking-on-fashion-overproduction/">a letter last month</a>, 65 civil society groups defended the French law as “a unique opportunity to truly tackle the harmful model of overproduction in the clothing industry”.”</p> <p>The proposed ban on so-called ‘goldplating’ was an attempt to close the space available to member states to introduce more ambitious social and environmental standards than those agreed in EU level directives (see also Deregulation Watch March 13th 2026). Luckily this was removed from the roadmap, although the Commission and hard-right governments are likely to try to get this back on the agenda before long.</p> <p><a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5445de81-9481-4335-9902-9756159ba614_en?filename=one-europe-one-market-roadmap.pdf">The roadmap</a> still contains a huge number of problematic deregulatory initiatives and therefore requires critical scrutiny and public debate. There’s an appendix of over 40 'priority deliverables', competitiveness-related initiatives that the Commission has already launched (such as the ten Omnibus packages introduced in 2025 and the proposal for a new 'EU Inc.' company law status) or planned initiatives such as new Omnibus packages on energy and taxation. Worryingly, the list also includes a new banking deregulation package to be adopted before the end of 2027. By signing the roadmap, Parliament and governments “commit to working towards a swift agreement on all the legislative proposals set out in the annex, treating them as political priorities”.</p> <p>The roadmap includes a commitment to “a more integrated Single Market including by removing the ten most harmful barriers’. This refers to what the Commission has termed <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/881209/Factsheet%20-%20Single%20Market%20Strategy.pdf">'the terrible 10 barriers'</a>. These are not specific barriers but ten broad problem areas, including 'restrictive and diverging national services regulation', with a focus on specific service sectors such as construction and retail. It’s worth remembering that a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/11/wakeup-call-european-commission-its-failed-power-grab-over-local-services">previous Commission initiative to deregulate national-level service rules</a> was defeated in 2020. Opponents of the Services Notification Directive included the mayors of Barcelona, Amsterdam and Paris, who were rightly concerned that the directive would restrict their ability to regulate AirBnB's activities, which were causing significant housing affordability issues in their cities. Worryingly, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/881209/Factsheet%20-%20Single%20Market%20Strategy.pdf">the Commission’s document</a> on dismantling the 'terrible ten barriers' makes no mention of preserving social and environmental protection, or the right of public authorities to regulate in the public interest.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Food and environmental safety dillution through European Biotech Act?</strong><br><strong>(24 April 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The Biotech Act I starts to gnaw away at past achievements to stop industry from hiding scientific data showing harm of their products (chemicals, GMOs, food additives etc.)</li> <li>It means a further roll back of the EU GMO laws - in particular for GM micro-organisms </li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en">Biotech Act I proposal</a> was announced by EC-president Ursula von der Leyen in the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/priorities-2024-2029_en">political priorities for 2024-2029</a> and was published on 16 December 2025. While its main focus is on health biotechnology, its impact is much broader. The Act proposes changes to six existing safety regulations. Notably it takes aim at some important improvements to the General Food Law (GFL) following the successful 2019 ‘Stop Glyphosate European Citizens Initiative’ (ECI). </p> <p>Then-Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis <a href="https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/citizens-experiences/blogs/how-stop-glyphosate-brought-about-small-revolution_en">introduced measures</a> to force companies to publish all scientific data contained in the studies for market approval. In addition, all regulatory studies submitted by industry had to be notified, blocking companies’ ability to abort and hide studies that show harmful effects by simply leaving them out of their application dossiers. With the proposed changes (see <a href="https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en">here</a>, p.27) the punishment for failing to notify a study is reduced from a six to a three-month delay in authorization. A three-month delay is hardly a punishment for a company, if it grants the opportunity to leave out inconvenient studies. </p> <p>In addition, a company can ask EFSA for advice on study design, making the agency co-responsible, while previously this responsibility remained with the company. And while previously EFSA staff giving advice to applicants could not be involved in the actual risk assessment to avoid conflicts of interest, this has been taken out in the Biotech Act.<br><br><strong>Safety presumed, not proven</strong></p> <p>The Biotech Act is also the next step in a roll back of the existing EU GMO law, following the deregulation for NGT plants, a proposal that is currently in the <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/eu-vote-on-new-gmos-wrong-for-farmers-wrong-for-consumers-wrong-for-nature/">final phase</a> of decision making following a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">strong industry lobby push</a>. <br><br>With this Act the Commission proposes to <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/news/european-commission-plans-to-accelerate-the-release-of-genetically-engineered-microorganisms/">lower environmental safety standards</a> for the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms (GMMs) into the environment. The market approval would be time-unlimited (renewal assessments are scrapped). Detection and identification requirements can be lowered, which would make environmental monitoring more difficult. Safety requirements would be further lowered for a new category of “low-risk GMMs”. GMO veterinary products are even completely removed from EU GMO law.</p> <p><a name="_GoBack"></a> <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/news/european-commission-plans-to-accelerate-the-release-of-genetically-engineered-microorganisms/">Testbiotech argues</a> that the use of new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) and of AI combined have substantially expanded the ways in which microorganisms can be engineered, and “therefore the safety standards should be raised, not lowered”. </p> <p>No impact assessment has been published. There is mention of 25 stakeholder interviews, without any further information. A Biotech Act II is scheduled for later this year and is expected to include more deregulation measures for biotech products developed for other sectors like agriculture, pushed for by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/croplife-europe_joint-industry-statement-on-the-eu-biotech-activity-7445378072830296065-UO5b/">the biotech lobby group Croplife Europe</a>. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The dreaded blueprint for social dumping (24 March 2026)</h3> <p><strong>Sector: general, company law</strong></p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The Commission has presented its proposal for a '28th regime', that will introduce a European company form with its own rulebook.</li> <li>The EU Inc. proposal will enable companies to ignore labour rights. </li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know: </strong></p> <p>The Commission’s proposal on the 28<sup>th</sup> regime has been released, and the initial signs are worrying.</p> <p>On Wednesday 18 March the Commission tabled a proposal that had been anticipated with both joy and dread since it was first announced in Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines for this term- “a so-called 28th regime to allow companies to benefit from a simpler, harmonised set of rules in certain areas,” <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">the guidelines</a> read. </p> <p>Technically, it is about introducing a European company form, with easier and faster registration. However, this could provide an easy way of sidestepping rules at the national level, introduced to uphold workers rights. If the national approach be cumbersome, companies can simply choose a different rulebook – a European one, the 28<sup>th</sup> regime. </p> <p><strong>Attack on labour rights</strong></p> <p>The jury is now out on the exact effect of the model picked by the Commission, but analysts in all quarters have taken an initial look at the text to figure out its nature. So far, trade union analysts are not in doubt: labour rights are under attack. </p> <p>Nevertheless, according to trade unions, there are good reasons to be worried already. Services workers federation UNI Europa regional secretary Oliver Roetig said in <a href="https://www.uni-europa.org/news/eu-inc-a-free-pass-for-regime-shopping/">a statement</a>, that with “companies allowed to cherry-pick countries with lower standards, it risks undermining our European social model, industrial relations and quality jobs. The proposal is unfortunately very clear: employee participation rights are linked to where the company is registered, and the company can register where they want.”</p> <p>General Secretary of the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers Tom Deleu <a href="https://www.efbww.eu/publications/press-releases/letterbox-inc-in-the-making-commission-proposal-ignores-fraud-re/4961-a">agrees</a>: “This is a bad proposal. In sectors like construction, EU Inc. will quickly turn into ‘Letterbox Inc’: it will fuel social dumping, weaken enforcement, and put workers at risk,” he said. </p> <p>The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/03/18/businesses-are-pleased-trade-unions-are-concerned-politicians-are-divided-reactions-to-the-eus-28th-regime/">highlighted</a> the absence of provisions that could have prevented companies from circumventing national labour laws, thereby endangering collective bargaining, wages, and rights to information and consultation in peril. </p> <p><strong>Triumphant business groups</strong></p> <p>For the business community, the Commission comes bearing gifts. There is already a hint in the name of the proposal, <a href="https://www.eu-inc.org/">EU Inc.</a>, taken straight from the lobby group set up by finance and industry companies to promote the idea. BusinessEurope, the main employers’ association, is satisfied, not least because what was first presented by the Commission President as a measure to support “innovative companies” ended up as something much broader. BusinessEurope’s Secretary General Markus Beyrer <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/28th-regime-proposal-a-positive-development-for-competitiveness-across-the-single-market/">notes with satisfaction</a> that the proposed new rulebook is “open to all types of companies.”</p> <p><strong>Similar plans have been defeated</strong></p> <p>It is not the first time the trade union movement faces a challenge like this, and previous attempts have been defeated. That could happen again – through campaigns waged by labour or more cross-cutting efforts. It does not take opposition from so many governments to defeat it. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Next week’s summit: the dual threat of EU and national deregulation (13 March 2026)</strong></h3> <p><br><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>A wide range of new deregulation initiatives will be revealed during next week’s EU summit</li> <li>Spanish MP Sánchez and Commissioner Ribera have spoken out against sweeping deregulation</li> <li>EU level deregulation combined with a strong clampdown on member state rule-making would mean ‘double deregulation’, bringing social and environmental progress to a halt</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know?</strong></p> <p>The EU summit in Brussels on 19-20 March will be <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=1127&cid=18&cs=0108905b27967c05428d498dba312aa1_1773309304_168">a key event for the future of Europe</a>, in a context of unprecedented pressure to further accelerate the EU's deregulation agenda that was launched by Commission President von der Leyen in her second term. Much of the summit agenda is based on the outcomes of the scandalously industry-captured EU "retreat" in Alden-Biesen last month (see Deregulation Watch <strong>16 February 2026</strong>).The Commission will present its "One Europe, One Market" roadmap and action plan. The roadmap will include timelines for legislative measures to be adopted by the end of 2027. It will have a strong focus on “deepening the Single Market”, but details remain to be seen. On 18 March, the Commission will launch its proposal for an "EU Inc." company status. Trade unions warn that this could result in a <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/etuc-ces.bsky.social/post/3mgn5dz4zms2y">race to the bottom for workers' rights</a>.<br><br>Leaked draft Council conclusions show that member state governments want "all pending omnibus packages" agreed upon by the end of the year. They also ask the Commission to propose more omnibus packages, beyond the ten presented in 2025. The Council requests that the Commission undertake an "in-depth regulatory review" of the entire body of EU law, a plan that was already included in von der Leyen’s political guidelines in the summer of 2024, but now might get member states’ backing too. As part of this the Council also wants all future draft EU laws to be "simple by design," with more regulations than directives. This would also prevent so-called "gold-plating" of EU legislation — a term favoured by corporate lobby groups to describe when governments exceed the minimum standards in EU directives by adding higher environmental, health, consumer, or worker rights standards. This legitimate option is now considered taboo among deregulation-obsessed EU decision-makers—a major lobbying victory for BusinessEurope (which has been <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2013-00641-E-1ea-1.pdf">attacking ‘goldplating’</a> for more than a decade) and other corporate hardliners.<br><br>Similar to before the Alden-Biesen retreat in February, right-wing government leaders Friedrich Merz, Giorgia Meloni, and Bart De Wever <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/nvondarza.bsky.social/post/3mgoriz2bq22b">held a preparatory discussion</a> to advance their joint agenda of accelerating deregulatiaon Last month, Merz called for a "regulatory clean slate," insisting on "deregulating every sector" to boost competitiveness. Recently, Meloni led a new attack on EU climate policy, particularly the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has also been <a href="https://euobserver.com/206244/row-over-eu-emissions-trading-as-industry-hits-back-at-chemical-lobby">under heavy fire from chemicals lobby giant CEFIC</a>. This week, <a href="https://caneurope.org/can-europe-letter-calls-on-member-states-to-support-an-ambitious-robust-and-socially-just-post-2030-climate-policy-architecture/">Climate Action Network Europe wrote to EU environment ministers</a>, warning that "the deregulation agenda promoted around the Antwerp Industry Summit and the February informal European Council risks repeating the mistakes of the past — delaying investment, deepening fossil dependence, and leaving Europe behind in the global race for clean industrial leadership." <br><br>Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly <a href="https://pes.eu/economy/pes-backs-spains-plan-for-a-competitive-europe-that-protects-its-social-model-and-strengthens-its-open-strategic-autonomy/">distanced himself from the radical deregulation agenda</a> promoted by Meloni, Merz and De Wever. In a ten-point "non-paper" for the upcoming EU Summit, Sánchez offered an alternative vision to the document proposed by Merz and Meloni last month. According to Sánchez, a "truly successful competitiveness strategy" cannot sideline social cohesion or the Green Deal in the name of regulatory simplification. He wants to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-defends-eus-carbon-market-against-flurry-of-attacks-from-other-capitals/">keep decarbonisation at the core of EU competitiveness</a> and scale up public investment at the European level.<br><br>Last week, Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera also distanced herself from Merz’s demands, warning that "deregulation could spell the end of the EU." In an <a href="https://www.contexte.com/eu/article/power/deregulation-could-spell-the-end-of-the-eu-ribera-warns_256799">interview with <em>Contexte</em></a>, Ribera said, "Tearing up EU rules in the name of boosting industry risks unravelling the bloc itself." She warned that "sweeping deregulation would effectively take Europe back to the early 1950s — an era before the founding Treaty of Rome and the common market — to a fragmented landscape of 'no common regulation' and '27 national realities.'"<br><br>If EU legislation is rolled back and the emergence of new EU rules to solve societal problems is made much harder, this will indeed force national governments to develop their own rules instead. However, if the Commission simultaneously moves ahead with"Single Market enforcement" initiatives to clamp down on member state laws that industry considers "regulatory barriers" (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/06/30-years-eu-single-market">many of which are legitimate rules</a> and policies in the public interest), we will face a disastrous scenario of double deregulation. The extent of this threat will become clearer when the Commission presents the "One Europe, One Market" action plan.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Chemicals Omnibus: battle in European Parliament (12 March 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>Sector:</strong> Chemicals</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now; progressive MEPs have tabled some positive amendments</li> <li>Following a civil society complaint about the Chemicals Omnibus, the European Ombudsman will consider our concerns in the context of her wider inquiries into recent EU decision-making, and inform the Commission of the complaint</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now. This omnibus, number VI in the European Commission’s <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-and-implementation/simplification_en">programme</a>, seeks to deregulate aspects of chemicals labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers regulations.</p> <p>But MEPs from the Left, Greens, Socialists & Democrats, and Renew Europe groups have tabled amendments on a variety of issues to substantially transform the draft.</p> <p>One set of <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1856397/progressive-mepsseekreintroduction-ofclp-labelling-rules-in-eu-chemicals-omnibus">amendments</a> would reinstate chemicals hazard labelling requirements such as minimum font sizes and line spacing standards to make them more legible. These requirements were introduced by the Commission in the recent 2024 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/revised-chemical-labelling-regulation-enters-force-2024-12-10_en">revision</a> of the regulation, but the Commission’s 2025 Chemicals Omnibus now proposes that they should be removed!</p> <p>Progressive MEPs have also <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1866192/meps-remain-split-on-challenging-chemicals-omnibus">proposed</a>, via the Chemicals Omnibus, that endocrine disruptors and forever chemicals (PFAS) should be banned in cosmetic products to enhance protection of public health. Other amendments seek to reverse the Commission’s plans to (1) make it easier to use carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances in cosmetics, and to (2) keep them on the market for longer. A <a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/briefing-en-omnibus-vi.pdf">briefing</a> by Générations Futures explains more.</p> <p>At the time of writing, negotiations are still underway, with progressive groups now tabling weaker, compromise amendments in an effort to secure agreement. But of course the right and extreme right wing parties in the European Parliament form an overall majority, and there is a real <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/tickets-please-the-chemicals-omnibus-is-back">worry</a> that the EPP [right wing party] will "choose to form an alliance with ECR [extreme right party] and the far right”. Per Clausen MEP, the Danish shadow rapporteur from the Left political group, has <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/the-chemicals-omnibus-sprint-to-finish-line">told</a> <em>Politico</em> that "the right wing’s fascination with keeping substances known to cause cancer on the market for years continues to boggle my mind." </p> <p>Meanwhile the European Ombudsman has decided to take action on a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Ombudsman%20complaint%20on%20chemicals%20omnibus%2019.2.2026%20FINALx_0.pdf">complaint</a> about the way the Commission developed the Chemicals Omnibus. Tabled by Corporate Europe Observatory, Générations Futures, Health and Environment Alliance, European Environmental Bureau, and the Center for International Environmental Law, the complaint focused on the Commission’s failure to provide a robust evidence base, nor conduct a public consultation. Instead the EU’s executive relied on a failed ‘reality check’ process, including slido polls, which was dominated by industry.</p> <p>The Ombudsman has told us that she will <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/DECISION_202600469_20260309_153155.pdf">consider</a> our concerns in the context of her <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/220471">wider inquiries</a> into recent Commission decision-making (including into Omnibus I, see Deregulation Watch update 13 January 2026), and that she will inform the Commission of our complaint as “it suggests that the issues addressed in my recommendation are not limited to the legislative proposals in question in the three cases I inquired into.”</p> <p>Générations Futures and Health and Environment Alliance have <a href="https://shaketonpolitique.org/en/appeals/omnibus-6/">launched a tool</a> for citizens to support an improved Chemicals Omnibus, while the Greens in the European Parliament have also <a href="https://act.greens-efa.eu/cosmetics/">set up a petition</a> to demand no poisonous chemicals in cosmetics. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Retreat at Belgian castle paves the way for harsh EU deregulation plan to be agreed at March Summit (16 February 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Last week's European Industry Summit in Antwerp and the EU Summit in Alden Biesen were arguably the most corporate-captured events the EU has ever experienced. </li> <li>The EU retreat appears to have endorsed the "One Europe, One Market" plan and a fast-track schedule for the proposed "28th Regime" legislation. </li> <li>These events are further accelerating the EU deregulation wave, with an important EU Council Summit planned in mid March.</li> <li>Meanwhile, opposition from civil society groups and trade unions is reaching new heights.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know: </strong><br>Following Thursday’s EU leaders retreat at the Alden Biesen castle in Belgium, Commission President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_26_405">Ursula von der Leyen announced</a> that EU leaders had agreed to approve a “One Europe, One Market Roadmap and Action Plan” at the EU summit on March 18. This radical deregulation plan includes the following main ingredients: </p> <ul> <li>speeding up the approval of the ten omnibus packages proposed last year and adding more this year as part of what she described as "a deep house cleaning of the acquis" (the term "acquis" refers to the complete collection of EU laws); </li> <li>"cracking down on gold-plating," a longstanding corporate lobbying demand to restrict governments' ability to exceed the minimum standards agreed upon in EU directives </li> <li>"sunset clauses for laws," meaning adding expiration dates to laws so they are discontinued unless renewed or reauthorized. </li> </ul> <p>Von der Leyen also announced that the Commission will launch its legislative proposal for the 28th regime before the March EU summit, meaning sometime within the next four weeks. The law is to be dubbed "EU Inc.," the name of an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-inc/posts/?feedView=all">industry lobbying coalition</a> with <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">close links to Big Tech</a>, that has promoted the proposal for the past few years. Trade unions are deeply concerned that the forthcoming 28th regime will <a href="https://www.etui.org/publications/how-28th-company-law-regime-jeopardises-workers-rights">undermine workers' rights</a>. Earlier this month, Esther Lynch, head of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), warned that <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/rage-against-the-28th-regime/?utm_source=euractiv&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_content=The+Roundup&utm_term=0-0&utm_campaign=THE_BRIEF">the 28th Regime could create "the biggest loophole in history"</a> if it fails to specify where businesses are legally based. “How would the labour inspector know where the employer even was?” she asked. </p> <p>The measures announced by von der Leyen reflect many of the key demands presented last month by Prime Ministers Merz and Meloni ("Merzoni", see also Deregulation Watch post 29 January 2026) as well as the overlapping wish lists of big business lobby groups. This is deeply worrying, considering their political agenda. In his article, "The Merzoni Plan Would Take Europe Backwards, Not Forward," Dave Keating describes Merz and Meloni as the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-new-power-couple-alliance-europe-giorgia-meloni-friedrich-merz/">"new right-wing Atlanticist power couple"</a> and <a href="https://impakter.com/merz-meloni-non-paper-eu-constitutional-coup/">quotes Claude Forthomme</a> who describes their joint initiative in the run-up to the Alden Biesen summit as "a constitutional coup, extending right-wing, pro-business power over the EU Commission and the European Parliament." <br><br>The Alden Biesen summit was preceded by a <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/11/european-leaders-meet-industry-heavyweights-in-power-shift-for-business">European Industry Summit in Antwerp</a> the day before. During this summit, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/antwerp-industry-meeting-shows-who-really-rules-europe/">von der Leyen, Merz, De Wever, and other EU leaders</a> met with industry leaders and lobbyists. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7428519009702178816/">László Andor</a>, the former EU Commissioner who is now the Secretary General of FEPS, described the two connected events as "a show of power to demand the rapid implementation of the center-right–far-right economic agenda without ifs or buts." The summit was indeed an intensely corporate-captured event. In the weeks before, von der Leyen’s cabinet held a series of preparatory meetings with corporate lobbying giants ERT and BusinessEurope on the two summits, including a<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu/post/3me5bg32ctk2h"> dinner meeting with more than a dozen BusinessEurope lobbyists</a> in the first week of February. As the Spanish campaigner Tom Kucharz points out, this is the culmination of <a href="https://www.elsaltodiario.com/la-motosierra-ue/cumbre-ue-castillo-alden-biesen">a corporate lobbying campaign that began in 2022</a>. <br><br>Last week, proponents of deregulation staged an unprecedented PR show, but civil society groups and trade unions demonstrated their determination to resist this agenda with an unprecedented number of initiatives. Extinction Rebellion <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/09/eu-urged-not-roll-back-green-agenda-revive-faltering-economy">occupied the offices of the chemical industry lobbying giant CEFIC</a> to protest their Antwerp Summit. A coalition of NGOs and unions <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">denounced von der Leyen’s agenda</a> of prioritizing a “shadow roadmap” of industry-led deregulation over democratic and environmental safeguards. The <a href="https://grandparentsforclimate.eu/belgian-grandparents-talk-to-politicians-about-climate-alarm/">Flemish Grandparents for Climate</a> demonstrated in Alden-Biesen the weekend before the summit and Irish comedian Michael Fry attacked von der Leyen’s deregulation wave in <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/bigdirtyfry.bsky.social/post/3mejae6idmc2u">a satirical video</a>. The Climate Action Network wrote to EU leaders to counter industry calls to roll back EU climate laws. In an opinion piece, <a href="https://euobserver.com/202737/corporate-lobbyists-push-for-deregulation-while-workers-pay-the-price/">ETUC's Esther Lynch denounced deregulation</a>, pointing out that "Europe's competitiveness challenge cannot be solved by stripping away rights and protections" and that “it can only be solved by building a mission-led economy — one that sets clear priorities, mobilises the significant investment needed, contributes to creating quality jobs”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Red Alert: mid-February EU summit aims to accelerate EU deregulation (29 January 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell: </strong></p> <p>• An EU "Leaders' Retreat" on 12 February will discuss radical proposals to accelerate the deregulation of EU- and national-level legislation.</p> <p>• This reflects the growing support among EU governments for the deregulation agenda first launched by Commission President von der Leyen in late 2024.</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>On 12 February EU leaders will meet at Alden Biesen castle in rural Belgium for an informal summit dedicated to "competitiveness." The "Leaders' Retreat" will address deregulation demands proposed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month. The summit is hosted by Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, who shares the views of Merz and Meloni that the European economy is suffering from “overregulation”.</p> <p>During their <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/01/23/meloni-merz-europes-new-best-mates-want-to-abolish-eu-bureaucracy/">bilateral summit in Rome</a> last week, Merz stated that he and Meloni "want to dismantle bureaucracy to be more competitive" and called for "legislative and regulatory self-restraint." By "bureaucracy," Merz and Meloni mean rules developed to protect people and the environment. Meloni said that the EU’s ecological transition has "brought our industries to their knees." In a <a href="https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/01/merz-says-eu-crippled-itself-with-over-regulation-proposes-emergency-brake/">speech at the World Economic Forum</a> in Davos, Merz said that the EU has "crippled itself with over-regulation." In a <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/ger-ita-non-paper-competitiveness_en_finale.pdf">three-page document submitted for the EU summit</a>, Merz and Meloni called for "deeper integration of the Single Market," arguing that "we need to ease the regulatory burden on our businesses." The document claims that "our internal barriers add up to internal tariffs of 44 percent for trade in goods and more than 110 percent for trade in services." However, these figures are highly misleading, based on an IMF study with a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7420494211533225986-pkAv/?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI&utm_campaign=gmail">deeply flawed methodology</a>. The crusade to remove "internal barriers" in the Single Market <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf">threatens legitimate national-level environmental and social standards</a> and will likely hinder the advancement of progressive national-level regulations.</p> <p>Merz and Meloni also demand an Omnibus to speed up permitting, an "emergency brake" to allow governments to intervene if new EU legislation is considered too "burdensome," and the finalization of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">the controversial "28th Regime"</a> by the end of the year. They also demand "systematic monitoring and assessment of amendments proposed by the co-legislators in the legislative process to assess whether the proposed changes are associated with additional burdens" (ie. business-friendly impact assessments of amendments voted for by the European Parliament). </p> <p>Virtually all of these priorities are longstanding demands of industry lobbyists, promoted by BusinessEurope, the European Round Table for Industry (ERT), and others. Meanwhile, this lobbying continues at full speed. Last week, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), which is part of BusinessEurope, met with the cabinet of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss preparations for the informal EU summit scheduled for 12 February in Alden Biesen. Pieter Timmermans of FEB <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vbofeb_pieter-timmermans-met-with-the-cabinet-activity-7420099723442946050-Mkc3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI">posted on LinkedIn</a> that the lobby group "presented its key priorities, including strengthening the internal market [...] and cutting administrative burdens — particularly those associated with the Pay Transparency Directive." This last point refers to BusinessEurope's lobbying campaign for a so-called "social omnibus" that would weaken workers' rights (see Deregulation Watch update 11 December 2025) . The ERT also had a meeting last week with von der Leyen’s cabinet to discuss the "single market." Unfortunately, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=2e8c7181-c204-4f2d-9607-722ac7e2a7fe&host=no">the minutes posted online</a> are ultra brief and virtually useless (11 words: "Exchange of views on the barriers to strengthening the Single Market)". This undermines transparency and prevents public scrutiny of interactions between the Commission’s leadership and powerful industry lobby groups. Meanwhile late last week BusinessEurope published its “<a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/the-businesseurope-omnibook-to-reduce-regulatory-burdens/">Omnibook</a>” of almost 140 deregulation demands. Intensive corporate lobbying continues. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Omnibus X on food and feed safety: weakening safety rules on pesticides, GMOs, animal feed (19 January 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>Sector: </strong>food and agriculture</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <p>The tenth <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b0817113-6edc-4219-b638-8060fee037d5_en?filename=horiz_omnibus_reg-com-2025-1030_en.pdf">Omnibus proposal</a> on food and feed was published by the European Commission in December 2025. Instead of raising the ambition on moving our food production away from the intensive use of pesticides, as promised in the <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en">EU Farm to Fork strategy</a>, this Omnibus would severely weaken pesticide safety standards. Most worryingly, it would scrap the regular renewal process for pesticide authorization for most substances, and make it more difficult for new evidence of harm from pesticide products to be used by EU member states. This could have serious consequences for our health and environment by keeping hazardous pesticides longer on the market.</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>This Omnibus contains a proposal to simplify the rules to bring biopesticides to the market. This is a longstanding promise, that was included in the pesticide reduction law SUR. The SUR was defeated after <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">a staunch industry lobby campaign</a>.</p> <p>However, and here it comes, the Omnibus would at the same time <em>bring down</em> safety standards for <em>synthetic pesticides</em>. A first leaked draft proposal of this Omnibus <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2025/12/%E2%80%98food-and-feed-safety-omnibus%E2%80%99-threatens-pesticide-rules">according to PAN-Europe</a> would have exempted up to 90% of all pesticides from re-evaluation.</p> <p>After strong protests, some of the worst elements from the leaked draft were removed. But the new version “continues to undermine key pillars of EU pesticide law”, <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/12/eu-commission-retreats-worst-plan-still-opens-door-unlimited-pesticide">commented PAN-Europe</a>. The proposal still grants most pesticides unlimited approval after a risk assessment is completed. Renewal assessments would only be required for specific cases, such as ‘candidates for substitution’ (pesticides known to be particularly harmful) or substances for which data gaps were observed.</p> <p>In addition, the Omnibus proposal would restrict Member States from using the latest scientific evidence in the assessment of pesticide formulations, and make it easier for companies to obtain EU-wide derogations for pesticides that are banned for safety reasons. It would also allow the use of certain types of drones for pesticide applications.</p> <p>In an independent scientific statement, <a href="https://www.ecologic.eu/20295">over 200 researchers and medical professionals are raising concerns</a> about these measures. <a href="https://www.ecologic.eu/20295">The statement warned</a> that the Omnibus would “weaken fundamental safeguards in pesticide risk assessment, with implications for environmental protection, biodiversity and human health”, and instead calls for a strengthening of the EU pesticide rules.</p> <p>The Commission also announced action to restrict or eliminate residues from pesticides banned in the EU on imported food and feed. This has been a longstanding demand from health and environmental groups. However <a href="https://www.foodwatch.org/en/omnibus-on-food-safety-checks-for-pesticides-under-attack">as foodwatch pointed out</a>, the proposal will also make EU decisions on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticides in foods for an unlimited time period, so no renewal assessments. It might end up being an empty promise, to be stricter on standards for imported food being the same as those demanded in the EU – when at the same time lowering the standards in the EU!</p> <p>The Omnibus would also introduce more ‘flexibility’ on border controls, as well as granting unlimited authorization for additives to animal feed, and more. Watch this space for actions to come.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2025 was the year of the Omnibus. Will 2026 be the year of resistance to EU deregulation? (13 January 2026)</strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <p>• The European Commission launched ten Omnibus packages in 2025, weakening regulatory standards on issues ranging from corporate sustainability and digital rights to food safety</p> <p>• We’ve created an ‘Omnibus Tracker’ that provides an up-to-date overview of Omnibus proposals and what’s at stake</p> <p>• At least 3 other Omnibus packages have been announced for 2026, but this number is likely to grow during the year</p> <p>• Criticism of the Commission’s deregulation agenda is growing, and resistance is likely to become a major feature of 2026</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>2025 was the first full year of the second <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">von der Leyen Commission's agenda to promote corporate competitiveness by 'simplifying'</a> (i.e. deregulating) EU laws and weakening social and environmental standards and rights. The result was the launch of 10 so-called Omnibus proposals - which lump together multiple laws to be 'simplified' - during 2025. Together with our allies in civil society, we have created an <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true">Omnibus Tracker</a> showing which Omnibus packages have been launched, what is at stake, and where to find further information.</p> <p>The <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategy-documents/commission-work-programme/commission-work-programme-2026_en">Commission’s work programme for 2026</a> contains very little new legislation, focusing mainly on deregulation initiatives (see Deregulation Watch 24 October 2025, below). It lists three new omnibus proposals (taxation, energy product legislation, and citizens’ rights), but several more are likely to follow. Add to that other types of deregulation initiatives, such as the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">proposal for a 28th Regime law</a> expected in March. And that’s only the beginning: the European Commission will <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8556fc33-48a3-4a96-94e8-8ecacef1ea18_en?filename=250201_Simplification_Communication_en.pdf">“stress test” all existing EU legislation</a> on its impact on industrial competitiveness over the next few years. This could become the biggest wave of deregulation in the history of the EU</p> <p>An increasing number of critical voices are speaking out from within the EU policy bubble. <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/211340">The European Ombudsman issued a strong ruling</a> against the Commission’s omnibus approach, labeling it maladministration and insisting that the Commission cannot bypass democratic checks and balances. Last month, Commission Vice-President Ribera criticised the Commission’s deregulation agenda, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-red-tape-cutting-terrible-political-spectacle-teresa-ribera-says/">calling it a 'Trumpist approach'</a> that weakens standards, creates uncertainty, and burdens citizens. In a highly critical in-depth analysis published mid-December, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/17/burning-through-the-rulebook-europes-omnibus-fever.pdf">Politico Europe noted</a> that the Commission’s agenda is increasingly perceived as “deregulation by stealth”. Politico states that the omnibus paradigm “speeds up deployment but thins accountability” and erodes “transparency, participation, and institutional balance”.</p> <p>Civil society and trade unions are clearly opposed to the wave of deregulation. In September, almost 500 organisations signed a <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/eu-weakens-rules-safeguard-people-and-environment">statement “calling for more protections, not fewer”</a>, and national-level coalitions against EU deregulation are being formed. Our prediction: 2026 will be a year of growing resistance to the Omnibus paradigm and the wider deregulation agenda.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="meta-origin"><strong>Defence as a justification for deregulation: the military caveat in the Climate Law (17 December 2025)</strong></h3> <p><strong>Sector:</strong> Climate</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Climate Law contains a new route for deregulation – the military trump card.</li> <li>That’s on top of a competitiveness review that could weaken targets, and the inclusion of dangerous distractions promoted by big polluters.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>Last week, the European Council and European Parliament <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/10/2040-climate-target-council-and-parliament-agree-on-a-90-emissions-reduction/">reached political agreement</a> on the Climate Law, which contains a new 2040 target for 90% emissions cuts, including 5% from buying international offset credits. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/06/carbon-offsets-fail-cut-global-heating-intractable-systemic-problems-study">Decades of evidence</a> shows that outsourcing emissions cuts to poorer countries does not reduce emissions (see <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch#:~:text=Deregulatory%20dangers%20from%20%E2%80%98flexibilities%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98competitiveness%E2%80%99%20review%20in%20the%20Climate%20Law%20%284%20November%202025">Deregulation Watch post from 4 November</a>), while the Climate Law’s goal of including so-called “carbon removals” in the EU Emission Trading System represents yet another huge loophole for big polluters.* In terms of deregulating climate policy, however, the biggest threat comes under the guise of competitiveness and military prioritisation. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch#:~:text=Deregulatory%20dangers%20from%20%E2%80%98flexibilities%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98competitiveness%E2%80%99%20review%20in%20the%20Climate%20Law%20%284%20November%202025">As expected</a>, the Law includes a review every two years that could weaken climate targets if they’re hurting industrial competitiveness – or more accurately, corporate profits.</p> <p>The consolidated text – <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=pascoe@corporateeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Fapi.politico.eu%2Feditorial_documents%2F50bf7664-cbee-441a-a4b8-77e89c773ca3/1/0102019b25c01345-65d6e499-77ca-4a54-838e-8f79b7d6fb40-000000/12_g3kLLRIzONOUXxiQ3mANn-Xo=456">made public today</a> – also contains another route to deregulation: the military trump card. The text states that when designing the post-2030 climate framework, the Commission should take into account:</p> <p>“<strong>the need to ensure the Union’s and its Member States’ capacity to rapidly increase and strengthen their defensive capacity by addressing possible burdens</strong> while maintaining incentives for industrial decarbonisation... and consider taking necessary measures, including legislative proposals”.</p> <p>In other words, climate goals should not be pursued if they are perceived as a “burden” on the EU’s military priorities. This far-reaching caveat paves the way for climate rules to be weakened, eroded or filled with new loopholes, all in the name of defence. This could risk new LNG imports or oil and gas exploration being justified as a military necessity.<br> </p> <p>* As <a href="https://www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/press-release-a-climate-law-for-polluters-confirmed">Real Zero Europe </a>warns, allowing emissions to be “compensated” by unproven carbon removal technologies – risky and dangerous technofixes that claim they will permanently take CO2 out of the atmosphere, by combining bioenergy or direct air capture with the fossil fuel industry's favourite red herring, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/sep/12/carbon-capture-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card-that-does-not-actually-work">carbon capture and storage</a> – is an illusory fix that delays the phase-out of fossil fuels, risks locking Europe into dependence on polluting industries, and will cost EU taxpayers billions for little to no climate benefit.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Bad news and better news on water policy in Commission’s deregulation wave? (12 December 2025) </strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>This week’s <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">environmental omnibus</a>, following the recent <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2891">ResourceEU Action Plan</a>, emphasises the upcoming review of the Water Framework Directive, which is likely to deliver on corporate lobby demands to weaken its protections against pollution.</li> <li>However the Commission, at least for now, has <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_2998">decided</a> against reopening (and weakening) the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, despite heavy lobbying by the cosmetics and pharma industries to do so. <br> </li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong> </p> <p>The Water Framework Directive (WFD) will be subject to a “stress test” in the first half of 2026 as the Commission responds to corporate lobbying demands. In early December Environment Commissioner Roswall <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F209502/1/0102019ae4bb4a78-ca581c86-2582-4e67-8aad-baf2e9e4bb6c-000000/-WeE10TizAWiMmMVCNkNGYSq_sg=455">signalled</a> that there should be reform to water rules to make it easier to set up new mining infrastructure across Europe to access raw materials to feed industry. <em>Politico</em> reported Roswall as <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F209502/1/0102019ae4bb4a78-ca581c86-2582-4e67-8aad-baf2e9e4bb6c-000000/-WeE10TizAWiMmMVCNkNGYSq_sg=455">saying</a>: “there are long [waits] and some uncertainty on getting new permits due to different environmental legislations, and one is the Water Framework Directive.” </p> <p>This positioning reflects the lobbying demands of the non-energy extractive industry such as Euromines, as well as cement, ceramics, aggregates and other sectors, which have been <a href="https://euromines.org/neeip-joint-position-paper-on-the-water-framework-directive/">pushing</a> to weaken the WFD. But trade unions and NGOs have criticised the move. The General Secretary of EPSU, the European Public Service Union, called the Commission’s move <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/jwgoudriaan.bsky.social/post/3m73uyn6les2e">“beserk”</a> outlining that it would enable mining corporations to pollute water and increase costs for citizens. </p> <p>On a more positive note the Commission has <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_2998">decided</a> not to reopen the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), despite heavy lobbying by the cosmetics and pharma industries to do so. (See Deregulation Watch update 23 June 2025)</p> <p>These industries had been arguing that the polluter pays scheme, which forms part of the directive and which requires these two sectors to fund the clean-up of micro-pollutants from their products which end up in waste water, unfairly penalised them. Libération recently <a href="https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/pollution/micropolluants-les-coulisses-de-la-contre-offensive-des-lobbys-pharmaceutiques-et-cosmetiques-pour-contourner-la-loi-pollueur-payeur-20251210_UQCHTIWD2ZDL5OX55MPY35PNKY/">reported</a> on this intensive lobby battle, but the Commission has now concluded that, contrary to industry’s assertions, the expected costs of the scheme are as expected and it should go ahead as planned. </p> <p>This is good news, but as the Environmental Omnibus also <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">emphasises</a> how the Commission will “stress test” all EU environment rules by 2029, maybe the ‘polluter pays’ provisions of the UWWTD are not yet totally safe from the Commission’s deregulatory chainsaw.<br> </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Commission launches deregulatory environmental omnibus, number eight and counting (11 December 2025) </strong></h3> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Yesterday we saw the publication of the Commission’s <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">eighth so-called omnibus</a>, covering a raft of environmental regulations and aiming to weaken emissions reporting and management, scrap a database to inform recyclers about hazardous substances in products, and changes to ‘polluters pay’ schemes.</li> <li>Amongst other impacts, it is proposed that polluters should have weaker obligations, and more time to meet them, when it comes to the environmental impacts of their industrial plants.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong> </p> <p>As with the previous seven omnibuses, these measures are being presented as “simplification”, but corporate lobbyists will be ticking off a few more <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-01-22_businesseurope_mapping_of_regulatory_burden-d55-1.pdf">demands</a> from their deregulation hit-list. This is despite the fact that, as the Commission has acknowledged, tens of thousands of citizens provided feedback “against deregulation and weakening of environmental standards,” surely a reference to the impressive mobilisation by the <a href="https://handsoffnature.eu/the-campaign/">Hands Off Nature coalition</a> of civil society groups which defend current environmental safeguards.</p> <p>In response the European Environmental Bureau <a href="https://eeb.org/en/environmental-omnibus-eu-commission-weakens-another-set-of-laws-amid-maladministration-red-flags/">said</a>: the “new Environmental Omnibus package chips away at crucial EU laws that protect people’s health, nature and long-term prosperity.” Meanwhile Climate Action Network Europe <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?fetchDeterministicClustersOnly=true&heroEntityKey=urn%3Ali%3Aorganization%3A8646154&keywords=european%20environmental%20bureau&origin=RICH_QUERY_TYPEAHEAD_HISTORY&position=0&searchId=8a24413d-b071-4cfb-b01f-c14ce830853a&spellCorrectionEnabled=true">said</a> it “weakens the rules set to keep us safe, our air breathable, our water clean and our nature alive”. <br><br>But for environmental rules, this is just the start. The eighth omnibus <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502b572e-4ac3-47a8-95a7-ce619ec3e0ba_en?filename=COM_2025_980_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf">emphasises</a> how the Commission will “stress test” all EU environment rules by 2029, making it clear that far more roll-back is in the pipeline. Meanwhile work is already underway on aspects of existing water, waste, and chemicals rules, all of which is happening in the context of this reckless deregulation wave. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @CartoonRalph </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Industry lobbies demand a “social omnibus” to roll back workers’ rights (11 December 2025)</strong></h3> <p>“The EU’s 'simplification' drive is turning into a bonanza for corporate lobbyists”, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/counterinsurgency-how-europes-business-lobby-retook-the-berlaymont/">Euractiv wrote</a> in a deep dive last month. Thanks to the Commission’s deregulation agenda, “corporate hacks in the EU capital are suddenly securing policy wins they could once only dream of on everything, from weaker privacy rules to unleashing AI, and watering down pesticide regulations”. </p> <p>Unsurprisingly, corporate lobby groups now also have their eyes on deregulating EU social and employment law. That was already clear from the <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">corporate lobbying campaign for a '28th Regime' </a>(that could allow companies to bypass national level workers' rights and tax laws by choosing for a weaker set of EU level rules), but there's more coming. In October, the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA), part of BusinessEurope, launched a campaign for a <a href="https://arbeitgeber.de/wp-content/uploads/bda-arbeitgeber-positionspapier_en-labour_market_omnibus_proposals_for_reducing_reporting_and_administrative_burden-2025_10.pdf">Labour Market Omnibus</a> which would roll back key aspects of the pay transparency directive, posted workers directive, Works Councils Directive, Social Security Coordination, etc. In November, the European Chemical Employers Group (ECEG) presented its <a href="https://389cb3b2-7ba4-4acf-a332-3a5b5f2eebff.filesusr.com/ugd/977a5c_6dd525fd748341dfa4e23431e2b6ae6a.pdf">demands for a Social Omnibus</a>, calling for “burden reduction, simplification and streamlining of EU employment & social legislation”. The ECEG demands resemble those made by the BDA. Last week, four sectoral employers federations issued a statement calling for <a href="https://irshare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Call-for-simplification-and-enforcement-of-social-acquis.pdf">”stronger efforts from European policymakers to streamline the social</a> <a href="https://irshare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Call-for-simplification-and-enforcement-of-social-acquis.pdf">acquis”</a>. The statement, posted on the BusinessEurope website, presents ‘simplification’ demands on the exact same areas as the BDA and ECEG.</p> <p>Trade union <a href="https://news.industriall-europe.eu/Article/1383">IndustriAll Europe commented</a> that the “push for a ‘social omnibus’, aimed at rolling back worker-focused legislation, is not only misguided. It is opportunistic, and it distracts from the existential issues the sector must urgently confront.” “Rights for trainees, gender equality measures, and social protections are not the problem facing Europe’s chemical industry“, IndustriAll points out, whereas “high energy prices, falling demand, trade pressures” are.</p> <p>Although the EU Commissioner for social rights, Roxana Minzatu, has at several occasions, stated that there will be no Social Omnibus, ‘simplification’ of social legislation <a href="https://ceemet.org/eu-institution/epsco-council-a-clear-signal-that-simplification-must-finally-reach-the-social-and-employment-acquis/">was discussed at the summit of employment ministers</a> last week. With both the Berlaymont and numerous EU governments in a state of total deregulation obsession, nothing can be ruled out. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Ombudsman denounces the Commission’s sloppy and hasty decisions on ‘simplification’ laws (9 December 2025)</strong></h3> <p>The European Commission is in a hurry. One of its main objectives is to ‘simplify’ European rules and regulations to please the business community, and the lobby groups that spurred them on are impatient: better yesterday than today. To perform at a high speed, the Commission has simply skipped procedures intended to secure informed decision-making. </p> <p>That approach is now denounced by the European Ombudsman in <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/215920">a decision</a> from 25 November. Even if the Commission feels an initiative is urgent, it has to abide by “the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process.” This means, among other things, that the Commission is still obliged to investigate the consequences of its proposal, even if it will not produce a full so-called ‘impact assessment’. Furthermore, the Commission still needs to consult widely before writing its proposals, ie. not just a small target group of companies or lobby organisations. On a more specific note, an obligation under the European climate law to explore the implications for the climate of a proposal, cannot be ignored. </p> <p>These recommendations and others come as a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation into three complaints filed by civil society groups: one on <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/ngos-challenge-european-commission-s-undemocratic-omnibus-process/">sustainable reporting and due diligence</a> or ‘corporate sustainability’ by the European Coalition for Corporate Justice, ClientEarth and others), <a href="https://www.birdlife.org/news/2024/07/24/press-release-commissions-anti-democratic-cap-revision-escalated-to-eu-ombudsman/">on the Common Agricultural P</a>olicy (by BirdLife Europe and ClientEarth), and on <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Ombudsman-Complaint-Facilitation-Package.pdf">surveillance and migration</a> (by the European Digital Rights Initiative and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants).</p> <p>The Omnibus on corporate sustainability has now been approved at negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council. However, the measure is set to be challenged at the European Court of Justice by civil society organisations (see post from 21 November below). </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Conservative and far right MEPs approve corporate-driven Omnibus I – but is the Omnibus approach illegal? (21 November 2025)</strong></h3> <p>Last week, the conservative EPP group in the European Parliament shockingly joined hands with the far right to push through Omnibus I, the first of many Omnibus packages. Omnibus I reopens and weakens three corporate sustainability laws (the corporate supply chain due diligence law, known as CSDDD, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and the Taxonomy Regulation). The EPP thereby violated the longstanding ‘cordon sanitaire’ agreement of not cooperating with the far right. As the <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-european-parliaments-far-right-alliance-adopts-position-on-omnibus-i-corporate-capture-on-full-display-written-for-the-few-not-for-people-or-planet/">European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) points out</a>: “by aligning with the far right to push a corporate-driven agenda, the EPP has crossed a dangerous line”. The vote, the ECCJ states, “shows how corporate capture and far-right politics now walk hand in hand”. The Parliament further worsened the already harshly deregulatory proposal presented by the European Commission earlier this year, deleting all provisions on climate transition plans, thereby “stripping the CSDDD of one of its most vital tools to drive corporate climate accountability”.</p> <p>Calling Omnibus I corporate-driven is no exaggeration. In a report published last month, Reclaim Finance <a href="https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2025/10/09/lobbying-how-the-private-sector-hijacked-the-omnibus-directive/">analysed the Commission’s drafting of Omnibus I</a>. About Commission Vice President Stéphane Séjourné, Reclaim Finance notes that he “met only with businesses. No NGOs, no unions, no universities. He met only with representatives of private interests, motivated by private economic and financial considerations.” The European Ombudsman is currently <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/205297">investigating</a> how the Commission prepared the omnibus proposal, zooming in on the lack of public consultation and on several heavily corporate dominated ‘stakeholder meetings’ which the Commission hosted in February 2025. Earlier this month, over 100 legal experts <a href="https://thegoodlobby.eu/over-100-legal-experts-warn-omnibus-i-risks-breaching-eu-law/">warned that Omnibus I may be illegal</a> as it “lacks proper impact assessment” and “skipped full public consultation”, which may “contravene the proportionality and fundamental-rights safeguards that underpin EU law.” In <a href="https://verfassungsblog.de/omnibus-legislation-europe-constitutional/">a detailed analysis</a>, professor Alberto Alemanno outlines how these flaws apply to all of the different Omnibus proposals presented this year.</p> <p>Also the European Parliament’s decision-making was heavily industry dominated: <a href="https://sociallobbymap.org/the-lobbying-effect-how-corporate-influence-shaped-the-eus-sustainability-omnibus-proposal/">a report by Social Lobby Map published last month</a> found a total of 563 meetings between MEPs and lobbyists since the announcement of this Omnibus and noted that “these meetings have predominantly been with trade associations and large corporations”. Jorgen Warborn, the Parliament’s rapporteur, had a total of 49 lobby meetings, again “predominantly with companies and trade associations”. SOMO has highlighted the particularly <a href="https://www.somo.nl/how-big-oil-kills-sustainability-and-climate-legislation/">problematic role of oil and gas giant ExxonMobil</a>, which was not only one of the first to lobby EU governments to scrap or severely weaken the CSDDD, but also “successfully lobbied US President Trump about using the US-EU trade negotiations to attack the CSDDD”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Scrapping safety rules, scrapping freedom of choice, enter patented GM crops with more corporate domination</strong></h3> <p>The negotiations between the three EU institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament) – so-called trilogues - on the deregulation of a new generation of GM crops are intensifying, with the Danish Presidency strongly pushing for a deal. <br><br>If this deregulation – <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2025/02/6097447d-final-version-joint-statement-19.02.pdf">much contested</a> by environmental, consumer organisations, farmers and scientists - goes through, there would be no more prior safety checks, mandatory traceability, or on-package labelling for new GMOs. This would mean that GM products could come onto our fields and plates without us knowing about them. </p> <p>In 2018 the European Court of Justice had ruled that products of genome editing are GMOs and should be regulated. This led to a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">massive lobby attack</a> by the biotech industry lobby groups, lasting over a decade, to get the rules changed. </p> <p>The proposal that came out in 2023 was the result of a <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/new-gmos-kyriakides-gets-off-on-wrong-foot-with-biased-consultation/">highly biased</a>, <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/169003">undemocratic process</a> giving privileged access to biotech profiteers from start to end. </p> <p>When the proposal was made, it seemed that the Commission was making a gesture to the big biotech and pesticide corporations Bayer, BASF, Syngenta and Corteva, to make up for Green Deal measures such as pesticide reduction. However, the pesticide law was scrapped after a misleading lobby campaign by those corporations and right wing political groups, while the deregulation of new GMOs is still on the table. </p> <p>The proposal has been made even worse since. There is no scientific base whatsoever to assume that GMOs deregulated under this law are safe for health or the environment. The criteria for deregulation would let more than 95% of all NGTs onto the market without any risk assessment, bringing <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/info-material/why-plants-obtained-from-new-genetic-engineering-should-not-be-deregulated/">far-reaching risks</a> to ecosystems. </p> <p>The European Parliament last year voted to maintain consumer labels for all new GMOs, as well as a ban on patents for new GMOs. Patents on crops will increase corporate dominance over the food chain, harming independent breeders and farmers. </p> <p>For this reason only last year Poland vehemently opposed the proposal as it would lead to vastly more patented crops. However, once taking the Presidency it very quickly flipped around. <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=gaelle.cau@foeeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2Fgreen-economy%2Fareabaa9a3/1/01020195933e2b0a-5c3bf459-aa45-4299-8ee2-6f398ddf80a9-000000/XVQ19RbR0i0q20DTddd5wqmT658=417">An investigation published in EUobserver</a> exposed the levels to which pressure was put on Poland. </p> <p>In addition a large number of MEPs want guarantees that the GMOs that will be deregulated, have some sustainability advantage. Because, that was how corporations tried to sell them to the public to begin with. However, the Commission and the Council are opposed to any of this.</p> <p>But the rapporteur in the Parliament, Jessica Polfjärd (EPP) from Sweden, is staunchly in favour of a full-scale deregulation, and does not seem at all intending to defend Parliament's position on labelling and patents. </p> <p>If this deregulation goes ahead, it is the people that will pay the bill: risks to the environment and health will no longer be considered. This while corporations are allowed to increase their profits due to patents on GM crops. <a href="https://demeter.net/keep-new-gm-food-strictly-regulated-and-labelled/">Take action and write to MEPs here.</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="meta-origin">Deregulatory dangers from ‘flexibilities’ and ‘competitiveness’ review in the Climate Law (4 November 2025)</h3> <p>Today, EU environment ministers meet to finally agree changes to the beleaguered Climate Law, which sets a target for the bloc to make 90 per cent emissions cuts by 2040. Various leaked texts ahead of the meeting have revealed plans for a revision clause that could periodically review and weaken the target (and intermediate targets) if it is considered to be hurting the competitiveness of EU industry. This is an dangerous concession to the competiveness-before-people-and-planet mantra that has taken over the EU machinery.</p> <p>And that’s not all. <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F207645/1/0102019a4526f7b9-a4d07267-aecf-45ba-8948-a35a2b1f5142-000000/mZEi8hrl2JXbUC2ml0tHTbzsM_M=450">Reports</a> have indicated that the revision clause is getting ever broader. One draft text states that if Europe’s natural carbon sinks, like forests, fall short in how much CO2 they absorb (due to, for example, forest fires), the 2040 target should be weakened. Why? So that industry doesn’t have to cut emissions faster to make up for the shortfall.</p> <p>The draft texts have also provided ever more ‘flexibilities’ in how member states can reach the climate targets. These get-out clauses – such as <strong>outsourcing emissions cuts to poorer countries</strong> – allow big polluters to avoid transforming their operations. The Commission had already <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1687">opened the door</a> to international carbon offsets counting towards 3 per cent of the EU emissions targets, but <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-law-2040-emissions-target/">in the leaked texts</a>, that figure is open for debate. Some member states, such as <a href="https://carbon-pulse.com/448662/">France</a> and <a href="https://www.endseurope.com/article/1931348/warsaw-floats-plans-allow-10-offsets-2040-goal">Poland</a>, have been pushing to increase this to 5 or even 10 per cent. This lets polluters off the hook and passes Europe’s climate responsibility to other countries – <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/DeadlyClimateGamble">fuelling carbon colonialism, land grabs, and human rights abuses</a>.</p> <p>All eyes should be on the Environment Council today – because the outcome could be disastrous.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>EU Commission agrees to "simplify" green hydrogen rules, thanks to lobbying (30 October 2025)</h3> <p dir="ltr">Hydrogen Europe, an influential lobby group, appears to have successfully pushed the European Commission into weakening its definition of green hydrogen, potentially increasing the continent’s reliance on fossil fuels.</p> <p dir="ltr">Made from renewable electricity and water, green hydrogen is presented by industry as the latest silver bullet to replace oil and gas. The EU has pledged to produce 10 million tonnes domestically, and import the same again, by 2030.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, a new report from Hydrogen Europe shows the EU will miss its 2030 green hydrogen target <a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/production/eu-will-miss-its-2030-green-hydrogen-supply-target-by-more-than-90-hydrogen-europe/2-1-1878444">by more than 90%</a>. But rather than admitting that hydrogen was never going to live up to the hype (something CEO <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/hydrogen-hype">said</a> from the beginning), the hydrogen lobby - dominated by the gas industry - has framed it as a problem of over-regulation.</p> <p dir="ltr">Last month’s <a href="https://euhydrogenweek.eu/euh2week-2025/">European Hydrogen Week</a> in Brussels, organised by Hydrogen Europe and sponsored by the likes of Shell, Equinor and Repsol, pushed hard for so-called “simplification” of “overly strict and needlessly complex rules”. In the cross-hairs were rules defining green hydrogen. The rules, agreed by Member States in 2023, are designed to ensure green hydrogen production doesn’t take existing renewable electricity from the grid which would then be replaced by fossil fuels.</p> <p dir="ltr">At the conference, Hydrogen Europe’s CEO Jorgo Chatzimarkakis repeatedly called for an urgent review to simplify the rules. But on day two news broke that EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen was in <a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/my-support-for-hydrogen-is-unwavering-but-the-eu-will-not-reconsider-its-green-h2-definition-anytime-soon-energy-commissioner/2-1-1878839">no rush</a> and planned to stick to the EU’s timetable of reviewing them in 2028.</p> <p dir="ltr">Back at the conference, Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera, one of the most powerful people in the EU Commission, took to the stage to give the keynote speech. Exactly a week later, a senior official from her department told the World Hydrogen Week in Copenhagen that the <a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/eu-to-discuss-potential-changes-to-rfnbo-rules-as-part-of-2026-revision-of-blocs-hydrogen-strategy/2-1-1882918">EU <em>would</em> be looking at the rules</a>. Javier Garcia Fernandez admitted the Commission has received “comments from many stakeholders” about changing the rules, as well as the targets, and vowed to include them when reviewing the EU’s Hydrogen Strategy, expected by the end of 2026. Jørgensen had apparently been overruled. That’s still later than Chatzimarkakis would like, but far sooner than Jørgensen planned.</p> <p dir="ltr">If the rules are weakened, as Hydrogen Europe and many of its members demand, then green hydrogen may compete for the same green electricity used to decarbonise the energy system, with the excess demand picked up by fossil fuel generation. Given the expected increased electricity demand from data centres, expect it to lead to a major uptick in electricity generated by fossil fuels.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The Commission’s 2026 work programme is the most deregulatory in EU history (24 October 2025)</h3> <p>The European Commission’s <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/05d3777d-5d73-456d-bf56-38caa77d53c8_en?filename=2025-CWP_0.pdf">2026 work programme</a>, launched earlier this week with the pompous title “Europe's Independence Moment”, is the most deregulatory in EU history. <a href="https://positivemoney.org/eu/update/what-s-in-the-european-commission-s-2026-work-programme-key-policies-explained/">As Positive Money mentioned</a>, “out of 47 planned initiatives, 25 are focused on “simplification” – a euphemism for deregulation in many cases” . This includes “a new series of simplification initiatives and omnibus packages [...] across key areas such as automotive, environment, taxation, food and feed safety, medical devices and simplifying energy product legislation.“ Not to mention the many withdrawals of previously announced legislative proposals, such as the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) and several laws intended to limit tax evasion. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/katy-wiese-she-her-9a237285_ftt-europe-activity-7386707256903368704-kc6S/?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI&utm_campaign=gmail">As the European Environment Bureau points out</a>, the FTT could have generated “fair, stable revenue while reining in speculative trading […] at a moment when Europe faces massive investment needs—from the Green Deal to social policies and economic resilience”.</p> <p>The Commission also announces that its ‘Better Regulation’ framework will be “simplified”, with “a more rigorous and structured application of the proportionality principle” (the proportionality principle, mentioned in the EU Treaties, states that EU measures must be suitable and necessary to achieve the desired end, and not impose excessive burdens). The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/better-regulation-corporate-friendly-deregulation-disguise">Commission’s existing ‘Better Regulation’ framework</a> already includes a range of hurdles that draft regulations need to pass, such as the assessments by the highly <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/ombudsman-demands-full-lobby-ban-RSB">business-friendly Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a>. There’s every reason to fear that the planned reform will add significant new obstacles, limiting the chances that ambitious regulations to solve societal challenges make it through the Commission’s internal law-making machine.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Commission secrecy around corporate lobby meetings on deregulation (16 October 2025)</h3> <p>Ursula von der Leyen’s deregulation machine is running full-speed - and the European Commission is not keen on letting the public see how it works. In addition to numerous industry dominated ‘Implementation Dialogues’, ‘Reality Checks’ and ‘Targeted Consultations’ hosted by the Commission to identify corporate priorities for new deregulation initiatives, there’s also an enormous amount of one-on-one lobbying meetings. A search on the <a href="https://www.integritywatch.eu/ecmeetings.php">IntegrityWatch website</a> shows the Commission has had no less than 605 meetings with lobbyists on ‘simplification’ since December 2024. In that same month the Commission expanded the number of Commission officials whose lobby meetings are disclosed online to around 1500 and also announced that <a href="https://danielfreund.eu/success-for-lobby-transparency-1500-eu-officials-publish-lobby-meetings/?lang=en">minutes of these meetings would be published</a>. But what first seemed like a major step forward in terms of transparency, now turns out to be of very limited value – or even a step backwards. The notes from lobby meetings published on the Commission’s website are often ultra brief, lacking any meaningful substance.</p> <p>That’s also the case for meetings between Commission officials and corporate lobby groups about the ‘simplification’ agenda. The minutes from two such meetings in early May with the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=5d9f24f2-98d1-4dcc-b582-bce8c83f367d&host=no">European Roundtable for Industry</a> (ERT) and <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=1620b548-2dcc-40e1-b80f-6d5e19692455&host=no">BusinessEurope</a>, for instance, were only two short sentences of 21 and 27 words... The minutes lack any details on “main points raised and positions expressed”, whereas this information is required according to the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202403082">Commission’s own rules</a>. When we asked the Commission for <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/comprehensive_notes_from_recent">access to "other, more comprehensive notes from these meetings"</a>, we only got evasive responses. After waiting in vain for almost five months, we have now submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the secrecy around these and two other meetings with industry lobbyists on the ‘simplification’ agenda (see <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=1ee5fe2a-a3bd-44ad-93ea-cb19bc79defc&host=no">here</a> and <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=53ff5fa6-373c-47af-af07-368d035eb32e&host=no">here</a>). </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>UN human rights rapporteur criticises Chemicals Omnibus (8 October 2025)</h3> <p>The UN’s Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcos-orellana-093b5823/">Marcos Orellana</a> has criticised the European Commission’s proposed <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">Chemicals omnibus</a> including its proposals for weaker rules on substance labelling, and on preventing the use of hazardous substances in cosmetics. </p> <p>In a public <a href="https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30391#">letter</a>, the Rapporteur says: “I would like to underline that there is a high risk that the proposed Omnibus package on chemicals, as currently drafted, may negatively impact human rights, including the rights to health and a healthy environment, reversing recent improvements and creating legal uncertainty for businesses that have already invested in compliance.”</p> <p>Orellana goes on to criticise the way in which feedback was gathered for the omnibus, including the reliance on industry data and the potential bypassing of the views of affected communities. He calls on the Commission to hold “extensive, in-depth dialogue and active consultations that would allow concerned individuals, communities and CSOs to take full part in a full impact assessment, and guarantee access to information.”</p> <p>The letter explains that the regulation of chemicals is closely linked to the effective enjoyment of human rights, as governments have a duty to prevent harm by ensuring that toxic substances do not endanger people’s life, health, safety, or environment. Orellana concludes that “there is no compelling justification” to explain the measures proposed in the Chemicals Omnibus.</p> <p>This letter is complemented by a <a href="https://europe.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/ChemicalOmnibus_02102025.pdf">briefing</a> from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for Brussels, which adopts a similar, critical position on the Omnibus. It urges governments and businesses to “apply the precautionary principle throughout the lifecycle management of hazardous substances”. </p> <p><em>To find out more on the deregulatory aspects of the Omnibus, see the Deregulation Watch entry from 9 July 2025.</em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Food and feed Omnibus: a weakening of rules on food and feed safety, pesticides? (2 October 2025)</h3> <p>Yet another Omnibus proposal has been announced in a ‘call for evidence’ by the Commission, to “reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining high standards”, and this time the target is food and feed safety. </p> <p><a href="https://Users/macbook/Downloads/090166e5223176a5-3.pdf">In a mere five pages</a>, DG SANTE lays out which food and feed safety laws it intends to amend, however in what way exactly, and to what extent, remains very unclear. But as we know that ‘simplification’ is Commission speak for deregulation, there are certainly reasons to be concerned. </p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/tell-commission-no-weakening-rules-food-and-feed-safety-pesticides"><strong>Read more detail and take action here!</strong></a></p> <p>The list of issues in the call is focused heavily on pesticides: the approval process for pesticides and biocides, maximum residue levels for pesticides, and making it easier to use drones for spraying pesticides. However, also the longstanding promise to make market access easier for biopesticides is included, which would be a good thing.</p> <p>However, the danger is in what <em>other</em> changes might be proposed to the pesticide approval law 1107/09. This law has been long under attack from the pesticide industry, not in the least because it bans pesticides that are carcinogenic, or hormone disrupting, for instance. </p> <p>A lesser known actor in the pesticide lobby scene called ECCA could not stop itself from drooling over the prospect of pesticide regulation 1107/09 being re-opened. In <em>Agrafacts </em>of 19 September, ECCA said: "“The ongoing debate around a possible reopening of regulation (EC) 1107/2009 represents a key opportunity to revisit & refine core aspects of the regulatory framework for post-patent plant protection products.”</p> <p>They will surely not be the only ones. Others, like Croplife EU or Bayer and Syngenta themselves, will equally be lurking in the background waiting for their chance.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Growing threats to chemicals policy from deregulation agenda (1 October 2025)</h3> <p>Tomorrow the European Commission will ask “stakeholders” to input into its upcoming Environmental Omnibus via a “stakeholder roundtable” with Commissioner Jessika Roswall. Attendees are asked to come with “three key actions to reduce administrative burden stemming from EU environmental legislation”. But don’t be fooled by the language around “administrative burden” which makes it sound like the meeting will only discuss ‘red tape’. </p> <p>Tomorrow’s roundtable builds on a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14794-Simplification-of-administrative-burdens-in-environmental-legislation-_en">consultation</a> held over the summer which has flagged some worrying proposals for deregulation. These include scrapping the Substances of Concern in Products <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/scip-database">database</a>, which was established under waste legislation, so that those in the waste sector know which harmful chemicals are in the products they are handling, and to ensure the safety of recycled products. </p> <p>Additionally <em>Politico</em> has <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fpro.politico.eu%2Fnews%2F205452/1/010201998662d0c9-b43c3513-3f85-4c94-a21f-244577e11c9e-000000/u3ryjVawpekkdcdrV6Ms6Fo9mcw=445">reported</a> that the Commission is considering cutting 57 legislative acts which implement EU environmental law, following a “stress-test.” </p> <p>In a separate development, the Commission has <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1650684/commission-scrutiny-board-opinion-threatens-reach-revision-delivery">confirmed</a> that its impact assessment on the proposal to revise the REACH regulation [<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm">REACH</a> – the EU’s main chemicals regulation from 2007 – is the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. It aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment through the better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances] has been rejected by the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/ombudsman-demands-full-lobby-ban-RSB">Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a>. This little-known, unaccountable, yet powerful Commission advisory body is an existing tool in the EU executive’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/better-regulation-corporate-friendly-deregulation-disguise">deregulation toolbox</a>, and if it rejects it a second time, it will jeopardise the whole revision. </p> <p><a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1650684/commission-scrutiny-board-opinion-threatens-reach-revision-delivery">Media coverage</a> suggests that the REACH revision is being fought over inside the Commission, between those who want to roll it back, and those who want to build it up. As the European Environmental Bureau said, following the RSB’s rejection of the REACH revision impact assessment, despite “mounting chemical pollution scandals”, the Commission “appears more focused on shielding the very industry causing the harm than on protecting European citizens".</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>@CartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Von der Leyen rallies industry to help get deregulation packages approved (22 September 2025)</h3> <p>Is European Commission President Von der Leyen getting worried about MEPs and governments not buying into her <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">‘simplification’ agenda</a>, including the so-called omnibuses? [An omnibus is a proposal that sets out to change several EU laws in one go; recently these have become the main vehicle for deregulation.]</p> <p><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_2128">Speaking at a conference hosted by BDI, DIKH, and other German industry lobby groups</a> in Berlin last week, Von der Leyen encouraged industry to help get the omnibuses approved: “To get everyone behind this agenda in practice, we also need your clout, Ladies and Gentlemen. The clout of strong industry, strong SMEs and a strong craft sector. Bring that influence to the table. In the Parliament, in the Council. This is no time for vetoes.” The lobby groups hosting the event had <a href="https://www.dihk.de/de/themen-und-positionen/europaeische-wirtschaftspolitik/jetzt-handeln-europa-braucht-eine-wettbewerbsagenda-136716">prepared five demands</a>, including “a stringent application of the ‘one in, two out’ principle” (meaning new laws could only be introduced if two existing laws are removed!).</p> <p>Earlier in the week, Von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_2102">spoke at the ‘One Year After the Draghi Report' Conference</a>, outlining what her Commission team has done to “translate the report into practical policies”, including the “six simplification packages on their way”. Also here, Von der Leyen expressed impatience with the decision-making process, stating that the omnibuses “need an urgent approval by the co-legislators.” </p> <p>Draghi himself, in his speech at the conference, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/09/16/draghi-calls-for-pause-to-ai-act-to-gauge-risks">called for EU rules on AI to be paused</a> (echoing the two-year clock-stop” on the AI Act which industry lobby groups are demanding) and promoted the proposed “28th regime” EU-level company law (without mentioning t<a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">he risk of this causing a downwards spiral in workers’ rights</a>). <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/0951a4ff-cd1a-4ea3-bc1d-f603decc1ed9_en?filename=Draghi_Speech_High_Level_Conference_One_Year_After.pdf">Draghi also praised the Commission</a> for having “eased some of the most onerous reporting requirements through its Omnibus on sustainability.” A week before, more than 250 economists had heavily criticised the same Omnibus in <a href="https://www.uni-hamburg.de/en/newsroom/im-fokus/2025/0909-interview-copenhagen-declaration/copenhagen-declaration-final.pdf">the Copenhagen Declaration</a>, pointing out that “sustainability is not a 'regulatory burden' but a strategic advantage that strengthens Europe’s competitiveness”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Von der Leyen’s SOTEU speech vs the growing resistance to EU deregulation (12 September 2025)</h3> <p>In her <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ov/SPEECH_25_2053">State of the EU speech (SOTEU)</a> earlier this week, Commission President Von der Leyen once again claimed that the Commission's so-called 'simplication' agenda is just about "less paperwork, less overlaps, less complex rules" and reducing "bureaucratic costs for European companies". <a href="https://eeb.org/state-of-delusion-von-der-leyen-trades-eus-green-deal-legacy-for-deregulation/">The European Environment Bureau (EEB) disagreed</a>: “behind the rhetoric of ‘simplification’ for ‘competitiveness’ lies a deregulatory agenda […] that strikes at the heart of the Green Deal”, adding that “believing we can deregulate our way out of the climate, pollution and nature crises is a dangerous illusion”. Earlier this week <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/our-protection-must-not-be-sold-profit">a statement supported by 470 trade unions and civil society groups</a> denounced the “unprecedented wave of drastic cuts to regulations that protect labour and social rights, human rights, digital rights, and the environment”. And also this week, <a href="https://www.birdlife.org/news/2025/09/11/hands-off-nature-nearly-200-000-citizens-say-no-to-weakening-eu-environmental-laws/">almost 200,000 citizens wrote to the European Commission</a> insisting it must “stop any rollback of EU nature laws under the guise of ‘simplification’”.</p> <p>In terms of new deregulation initiatives, Von der Leyen in her speech announced a forthcoming Single Market Roadmap with deadlines to remove “barriers” by 2028. She made the hugely exaggerated claim that "internal barriers" in the EU means businesses face the equivalent of a 45% tariff on goods and a 110% tariff on services. These figures come from a<a href="https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold"> heavily criticised IMF study</a> which treats any differences in trade flows between EU countries as "barriers", also differences that result from consumer preferences (such as Italian consumers preferring Italian food). The Commission’s Single Market agenda aims to remove differences in national-level regulations that can be interpreted as ‘regulatory barriers’ to trade. Many of these differences, however, are entirely <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/single-minded-single-market-strategy">legitimate rules that exist to address societal problems</a>. In <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/efbww.bsky.social/post/3lyf5rx7rgk27">a BlueSky post this week</a>, the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW) commented: “Too many barriers, EU say? We need more to fight fraud and exploitation!”, referring to their c<a href="https://www.limitsubcontracting.eu/">ampaign to stop exploitation of workers in subcontracting chains</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="meta-origin">A Crooked Consultation? The EU’s CO2 infrastructure plans are the result of a fossil fuel industry stitch up (11 September 2025)</h3> <p>As part of its ill-fated pursuit of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the Commission has been <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14804-Legislative-initiative-on-CO2-transportation-infrastructure-and-markets_en">consulting on</a> a planned new law to entrench the technology by developing “competitive markets and transportation infrastructure for CO2”. Closing today, this call for feedback fits into the EU's bigger deregulatory push: the Commission’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14804-Legislative-initiative-on-CO2-transportation-infrastructure-and-markets_en">background document</a>, for example, identifies “significant barriers” to “permitting CO2 assets” which could be addressed via “a permanent and comprehensive enabling framework” (read: deregulation). The planned law is a direct <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup">result of corporate capture by the fossil fuel industry</a> through mechanisms such as the Industrial Carbon Management (ICM) Forum.</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited">Dominated and steered by oil and gas lobby groups</a>, the ICM Forum has been allowed to shape key industrial policies, particularly on CCS technologies. The oil and gas industry sees the technology as a way to stay in business: according to them, the technology will allow Europe to keep using fossil fuels and still meet its climate targets because, in theory, they will be able to capture the climate-warming emissions. However, over the past 50 years carbon capture technologies have shown themselves to be risky, costly, and a repeated failure. But the fossil fuel industry knows that if it can lock in the CO2 infrastructure – by sweeping away regulatory barriers and using public money to build a vast network of costly and dangerous CO2 pipelines – it can effectively lock in CCS technologies (or at least legitimise them until they inevitably fail under their own contradictions), and therefore delay the shift away from fossil fuels.</p> <p>That’s why it is so worrying that the Commission’s plans for rolling out CO2 infrastructure, affirmed in a plethora of initiatives<a href="https://cool.tacticasbl.be/browser/b037cf11b3/cool.html?WOPISrc=https%3A%2F%2Fcloud.corporateeurope.org%2Findex.php%2Fapps%2Frichdocuments%2Fwopi%2Ffiles%2F351037_3yCPUCu&lang=en-GB&closebutton=1&revisionhistory=1#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a> and currently being consulted on, mirror the demands of the ICM Forum’s infrastructure working group, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited">itself co-chaired</a> by the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (<a href="https://www.iogp.org/about-us/members/">representing the likes</a> of ExxonMobil, Equinor and Shell). Ways to collectivise risks while privatising profits have been a mainstay, while the working group’s newest paper, <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/75b4ad48-262d-455d-997a-7d5b1f4cf69c/library/4c7c08d8-92b9-4804-8385-7231332f7327/details?download=true">published in February 2025</a>, recommends that the EU “simplify” and “streamline the approval process” to “speed up lead time of projects” and “reduce administrative burden”. Classic deregulatory jargon.</p> <p>Behind all the jargon lies a fundamental truth: the push for large-scale carbon capture and CO2 infrastructure – and the deregulatory drive used to enable it – is a costly distraction from taking urgent action to tackle the climate crisis. The plans being consulted on are heavily skewed in the fossil fuel industry’s interests, and result from an illegitimate process that threatens democracy and climate alike.</p> <p id="sdfootnote1"><a href="https://cool.tacticasbl.be/browser/b037cf11b3/cool.html?WOPISrc=https%3A%2F%2Fcloud.corporateeurope.org%2Findex.php%2Fapps%2Frichdocuments%2Fwopi%2Ffiles%2F351037_3yCPUCu&lang=en-GB&closebutton=1&revisionhistory=1#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a> <em>Such as the Industrial Carbon Management Strategy, the Clean Industrial Deal, the Communication on a 2040 climate target, and the Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act.</em></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Chemicals omnibus delivers deregulation for industry (9 July 2025)</h3> <p>The European Commission has announced a raft of industry-friendly deregulation steps in the chemicals sector, via its <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">sixth omnibus proposal</a>. These include weaker labelling on harmful chemicals; allowing carcinogens in cosmetics for a prolonged period; and weakening the registration requirements for fertilisers. As previously reported on Deregulation Watch, these proposals were all the subject of highly unbalanced, industry-dominated, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vicky-cann-1927a13b_rulestoprotect-activity-7330907289324814336-TM3v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAh7Nb4BPV7JHp8HdqjzsMR3hfvUjxiFLCU">“reality check”</a> workshops run by the Commission. Also announced was the problematic revision of the Sustainable Taxonomy rules which will now see toxic products labelled as ‘green’.</p> <p>The European Trades Union Confederation <a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/workers-put-higher-cancer-risk-chemical-deregulation">called</a> the chemicals omnibus proposal “incredibly reckless”, while HEAL (the Health and Environment Alliance) <a href="https://www.env-health.org/press-release-from-cosmetics-to-forever-chemicals-the-eus-deregulation-drive-puts-peoples-health-at-risk/">said</a>: “This opens the door to the prolonged, avoidable exposure of vulnerable groups, including children, to chemicals known to be carcinogenic.” Corporate Europe Observatory <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/good-day-chemical-polluters-bad-day-people-and-environment">said</a>: “Legislation which was agreed over a period of months and years is now being ripped up in a matter of weeks. And the public interest of health and environmental protection is being sacrificed in favour of profits. This does not bode well for the promised revision of REACH expected later this year.”</p> <p>This omnibus proposal will now be passed to the European Parliament and Council for their agreement, although MEPs have already <a href="https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/commissions-chemicals-package-gift-corporate-interests-expense-public-health">voiced</a> their concerns. </p> <p>Today 10 NGOs, led by ClientEarth, and including Corporate Europe Observatory, have demanded that the Commission <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/ngos-urge-european-commission-to-halt-deregulation-omnibus-in-chemicals-sector/">withdraws the Omnibus proposal</a> because it “undermines legal certainty, fails to meet EU transparency and consultation requirements, and is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.” Meanwhile the European Ombudsman is already <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/205297">investigating</a> how the Commission produced its first omnibus, which <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/takeaways-webinar-eu-omnibus-unveiled-key-implications-for-csddd-csrd-and-eu-taxonomy/">rolls back</a> various sustainability measures, and the lack of public consultation. </p> <p>As predicted in our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=10594&qid=1747314">recent FAQs</a> on the chemicals sector’s demands on the Commission’s ‘competitiveness’ and ‘deregulation’ agendas, yesterday’s wider chemicals announcements also deliver on a number of the industry’s demands, including on fake solutions to the climate and toxics crisis (hydrogen, carbon capture, emissions trading, chemicals recycling...); support to boost production of so-called critical molecules; and new alliances and partnerships with decision-makers. </p> <p>But as the Centre for International Environmental Law has <a href="https://www.ciel.org/news/eu-bends-chemical-lobby-consumers-health-environment-left-hanging/">said</a>: “The European Commission pledges to help boost chemical production in Europe, while one of the reasons why parts of the industry are struggling, like in the case of plastics, is that the market is saturated and demand growth cannot catch up with production capacity. More than mapping critical molecules, the European Commission should start by asking the uncomfortable question of which industries genuinely have a role to play in the just transition.” </p> <p>All in all these announcements represented a huge amount of gain for the chemicals industry, with very few requirements or obligations placed in return.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @CartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The door to greenwashing kept wide open – Green Claims Directive under attack (26 June 2025)</h3> <p>The EU's Green Claims Directive is facing a very uncertain future, after the European Commission last week announced it would withdraw the draft law, an unprecedented move as the directive was in the final stage of trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament and EU member states. The proposed rules aim to to curb greenwashing by requiring companies to verify environmental claims. The Commission has since reversed its official position, but <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-green-deal-eu-politics-economy-policy/">the Italian government and the EPP group</a> in the European Parliament are determined to block the directive.</p> <p>The Commission’s announcement to withdraw the directive was met with protests from liberal, socialist and green MEPs. Liberal MEP Sandro Gozi, who is rapporteur of the directive, warned that withdrawing the bill would mean the Commission was effectively acting as “the political executor of the EPP and the European far right”. The Socialists <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=virginie.rouas@corporatejustice.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Fx.com%2FTheProgressives%2Fstatus%2F1936084554537750868/1/010201979b338456-e3853606-e36d-420a-8ae4-045206857904-000000/GFUswIX-QZifsNzRNBdiXUrwqJQ=431">described it</a> as “a clear breach of institutional trust between the Parliament and the Commission.” Alice Bah Kuhnke MEP, Greens/EFA shadow rapporteur called it an“ incredibly dangerous precedent for their approach to Green Deal files,” demanding “the Commission to get its act together and follow through on its commitments and not pander to pressure from industry lobbyists and far-right falsehood.” Politico referred to the backlash as ”the most serious resistance von der Leyen has faced since she returned to the Berlaymont last year, perhaps in her entire Brussels career”, as liberal and socialist MEPs threatened to withdraw their support for her Commission.</p> <p>The Commission announcing the withdrawal of the directive followed a <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/05/Euractiv-7.pdf">letter</a> last week in which the EPP’s two shadow rapporteurs on the directive made exactly this demand. The Directive “risks unduly hindering sustainability communication through procedures that are overly complex, administratively burdensome, and costly,” the shadow rapporteurs claimed, referring to the Commission’s stated priorities around boosting global competitiveness. </p> <p><a name="_8HNZaJjDNLLY7_UPlda6yAg_77"></a>A look at the list of meetings between MEPs and lobbyists in recent months shows that rightwing MEPs from the EPP and ECR groups had lobby meetings on the Green Claims directive with SMEunited, the European Brands Association (AIM), the European Association of Communications Agencies, and snacks giant Mondelēz. AIM, which met both of the EPP’s shadow rapporteurs, has <a href="https://aim.be/news/joint-industry-statement-on-the-green-claims-directive">warned against the adoption of the directive</a>, stating the need for “a framework that is truly aligned with the EU’s goals set in the EU Competitiveness Compass and without any need for Omnibuses to address unintended consequences in the short term”. The Commission’s register of lobby meetings shows it discussed the directive with companies and lobby groups including L'Oréal, Cosmetics Europe, Apple and the French Association of Large Companies. The French lobby group “highlighted the high complexity of the proposed regulation and the extra burden it can provide for its members. They called for simplification in this context.” </p> <p>The looming collapse of the Green Claims Directive was welcomed by <a href="https://www.acea.auto/press-release/withdrawing-green-claims-directive-essential-for-delivering-on-promised-regulatory-simplification/">car lobby group ACEA</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>As EU deregulation obsession deepens, polluting industries eye opportunity to escape paying wastewater clean-up bill (23 June 2025)</h3> <p>In times where the European Commission announces new ‘Omnibus’ packages and other deregulation initiatives every few weeks, it is hardly surprising that industry smells blood and starts lobbying for re-opening of EU legislation they dislike. Now industry is even targeting a crucial directive on wastewater treatment. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD), which entered force only on 1st January 2025, is facing an intense lobbying campaign by Big Pharma, generic medicines producers, the cosmetics industry and others. The UWWTD for the first time introduces a strong polluter-pays mechanism at EU level, obliging the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries to pay part of the costs of removing micropollutants from wastewater. And it’s exactly this Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme that industry lobby groups now hope to get weakened or removed.</p> <p>In March, Big Pharma lobby group EFPIA announced it would <a href="https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/efpia-seeks-clarity-on-urban-wastewater-treatment-directive-in-the-european-courts/">take the European Commission to court</a>, arguing it was ‘discrimination’ that they are to pay for the water pollution they cause, whereas other industry sectors aren’t paying. CosmeticsEurope demands a reassessment of the EPR scheme, claiming that it “overestimates the contribution of cosmetics to the toxic load in urban wastewater”. Medicines for Europe praises the Commission’s “desire to remove unnecessary bureaucracy” and <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/opinion/inefficient-regulation-threatens-competitiveness-critical-meds-supply/">calls for an Omnibus package that includes the UWWTD</a>. Private hospitals giant Fresenius in a meeting with Cabinet of Commissioner Roswall on May 22<sup>nd</sup> “suggested that the public sector should cover the costs of waste water treatment.”</p> <p>In a <a href="https://www.aquapublica.eu/article/news/ep-resolution-european-water-resilience-strategy-calls-strengthening-europes-capacity">letter to Commission President Von der Leyen</a>, the federation of public water utilities AquaPublicaEuropea asks the Commission “to firmly uphold the EPR scheme and push back against any pressures to revise or weaken this core provision of the recast Directive.” The letter, sent jointly with local government organisations, civil society groups and others, points out that EPR scheme “ensures that the financial burden does not fall disproportionately on public water services and protects water affordability for European households”. Changing the directive would bring “legal and financial uncertainty, which would delay the rollout of quaternary treatment necessary to remove micropollutants.” </p> <p>Industry seems to have the winning hand: earlier this month, the Commission mentioned in its <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/1c566741-ee2f-41e7-a915-7bd88bae7c03/library/b560bc22-6a61-4b63-b62b-a7fe890ea177/details">Water Resilience Strategy</a> that it will carry out an updated study of the costs of the EPR scheme and the impacts on industry sectors. During an <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/epsco/2025/06/20/">EU health ministers meeting last week</a>, several member states expressed support for reassessing the EPR scheme and the Italian government even called for a suspension of the UWWTD as a whole.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The EU’s fact free deregulation agenda (12 June 2025)</h3> <p>During the <a href="https://eeb.org/rules-to-protect-civil-society-policymakers-and-affected-communities-united-against-the-threat-of-deregulation-in-the-eu/">sold-out conference on deregulation</a> earlier this week (”<a href="https://caneurope.org/content/uploads/2025/06/Agenda-Rules-to-Protect.pdf">Rules to Protect – the Real-Life Consequences of Deregulation”</a>, June 10th), a European Commission official made a not so convincing attempt to defend the ongoing deregulation wave. In front of a packed room, the official insisted that the ever-increasing number of Omnibus packages – reopening and weakening recently agreed EU legislation - is really just ‘simplification’ and not deregulation or lowering of standards. Already the first Omnibus package presented in February, however, clearly removes crucial features from the EU’s corporate sustainability law, weakening its ability to protect communities from corporate abuse. OECD data <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-outlook-interim-report-march-2025_89af4857-en.html">published</a> earlier this year show that several European countries, including Germany, France, Spain and Italy, are in fact more lightly regulated compared to the US, meaning there’s no justification for the regulatory massacre that the Commission has initiated. When confronted with these data, the official referred to business surveys complaining about EU rules (glossing over the reality that surveys produced by corporate lobby groups cannot be considered facts). Throughout the conference, civil society speakers warned against the massive societal costs of failing to regulate, as the example of PFAS (‘forever chemicals’) shows: the cost of cleanup and health impacts adds up to 184 billion euro per year. These costs, more than the EU budget, are paid by tax payers, not the PFAS producers. Due to the Commission’s regulatory rollback mood, a phaseout of PFAS is now looking unlikely. The ‘Rules to Protect’ conference <a href="https://caneurope.org/press-release-deregulation-drive-risks-dismantling-the-rules-that-protect-people-and-the-planet/">showcased testimonies from citizens in Belgium, France, Spain and elsewhere</a> whose lives are affected by inadequate regulation. EPSU’s Pablo Sánchez <a href="https://eeb.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1777448aafe85ef675bd9ea87&id=5cb0376b61&e=1b8b33e737">summed it up</a> perfectly: “<em>For those who make money, protection might seem like a cost. For the rest of us, it brings huge benefits</em>.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>A handful of gifts to ‘pretty big companies’ (26 May 2025)</h3> <p>The Commission is punching holes in hard fought for EU laws, including on data privacy, consumer rights, climate and environment – to support so-called ‘midcaps.</p> <p>It has been clear since July 2024 when Commission President von der Leyen presented her guidelines for her second term, that a new category of companies would be introduced in order to exempt them from obligations companies normally must fulfill. On 21 May, then, a new “small midcaps” category was introduced, defined as companies with less than 750 employees and less than €150 million in turnover. </p> <p><a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/omnibus-iv_en">The proposal</a>, the fourth of so-called omnibuses, sets out to amend 8 European laws, to support this category of companies. It is mainly about extending privileges hitherto enjoyed by companies with less than 250 employees (SMEs) to somewhat bigger companies too.</p> <p>The proposal includes derogations for midcaps on data privacy (the GDPR), on registration of import or export of F-gases (highly potent greenhouse gases), on financial regulation, and on import and production of batteries with which new due diligence measures to identify problematic materials or exporters in the value chain. The measures in the omnibus are not the final word on midcaps. Without specifying, <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/539ed995-b244-4ce5-a501-9d1d4a37f56e_en?filename=SWD%20Proposal%20for%20a%20Regulation%20and%20a%20Directive%20-%20Small%20mid-caps.pdf">a staff document on the file</a> reads, that the omnibus will “allow for further simplification specifically aimed at midcaps.” So there might be more exemptions coming.</p> <p>When preparing the proposal, the Commission has chosen a path that is becoming more and more standard. Both the definition of midcaps and the specific ideas for “tailored support to small mid-cap companies” have been developed through consultations with “the business community” and “representatives of European industry”, ie. with no other types of stakeholders involved in the process. </p> <p>According to the Commission, the proposal will weaken rules to benefit 38,000 companies to the value of <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/881208/Factsheet%20-%20Small%20mid-caps.pdf">€400 million</a> ‘administrative costs’. annually. The Commission has not estimated the cost to society at large for potential damage inflicted on people or the environment.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Single-Minded Single Market Strategy (23 May 2025) </h3> <p>The Commission’s <a href="//single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/single-market-our-european-home-market-uncertain-world_en">Single Market Strategy communication</a> launched earlier this week included a large number of measures, all described as ‘simplification’ but with a clear deregulation agenda. The European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW) called the Commission’s plans <a href="https://www.efbww.eu/publications/press-releases/commission-proposes-single-market-strategy-that-leads-to-more-so/4385-a">“a ruthless blow on labour rights, leaving workers at the mercy of unscrupulous companies”</a>. The European trade union confederation (ETUC), <a href="https://etuc.org/en/pressrelease/unions-show-red-card-deregulation-and-call-jobs-goal">from its congress in Belgrade</a>, slammed the Commission’s deregulation drive for “targeting workers’ rights and trade union rights”. The ETUC highlighted its concerns about the Commission’s plans for a ‘<a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etuc.org%2Fen%2Fdocument%2Fresponse-commissions-plan-28th-company-regime-innovative-companies-defending-workers-and&data=05%7C02%7CTMorrissey%40ETUC.org%7C6f2a1e71cb734795c74d08dd98789ecb%7C7a57d45075f34a4da90dac04a367b91a%7C0%7C0%7C638834366013814852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mcEGp20ySV0d9CgktH7ZTgjOCztWMxJFvd5pFiR6dUw%3D&reserved=0">28th company regime</a>’ which would allow some companies to opt out of national labour law. <a href="https://www.beuc.eu/press-release/eu-simplification-plans-should-keep-gdpr-and-product-labelling-strong">Consumer group federation BEUC</a> criticised about the Commission’s plans for consumer information to be published online only, instead of on product labels. “Key information about products’ use, maintenance and sustainability on and with the products, not online,” BEUC comments.</p> <p>The Single Market Strategy aims to remove differences in national-level regulations; many of these differences, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/single-minded-single-market-strategy">as highlighted in CEO’s media reaction</a>, are entirely legitimate rules that exist to address societal problems. Under the slogan of "Single Market ownership by Member States" the Commission wants governments to appoint sherpas with powers to prevent national "Single Market barriers" and it announces stronger "enforcement in response to significant breaches of EU law indicated by stakeholders" (in practice, ‘stakeholders’ being corporations and their lobby groups). The EFBWW fears that the Commission’s plans “effectively limit the capacity of EU policymakers, national governments, and social partners to take firm action and propose new legislation for a more regulated and more social internal market.” </p> <p>Business lobby groups have welcomed the strategy, with <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/single-market-strategy-a-promising-start-but-long-term-impact-must-be-secured/">BusinessEurope</a> calling it “a promising start”. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>“Simplification” Omnibus for EU agriculture means deregulation, denies environmental urgency (15 May 2025)</h3> <p>The Omnibus simplification package on Agriculture <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1205">as presented on 14 May 2025</a> by the European Commission is another step back from the EU Green Deal’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Simplification indeed means deregulation, for this Commission. The proposed changes will further reduce the scope for a European agricultural policy that truly helps fight the biodiversity and climate crises.</p> <p>A stunning example, as pointed out by EEB, the <a href="https://eeb.org/nature-and-climate-protection-takes-another-major-hit-in-eu-proposal-to-simplify-agricultural-policy/">proposals remove the link</a> between the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and new environmental and climate legislation, and weakens the protection of important areas like grasslands, peatlands and wetlands. </p> <p>The Omnibus proposal worryingly leaves environmental conditions that come with getting farm subsidies even more to EU Member States than currently the case. This will be counterproductive to any improvements in ecosystems that are under huge stress, which precisely undermines food security. Farmers organisation Via Campesina commented: “Measures to increase flexibility for Member States risk increasing the competition among farmers of different countries who are submitted to different standards and support policies, while sharing the same common market.” They added that already now, they have witnessed “a drop of environmental and social ambition in most Member States, which is a bad omen for the resilience of European agriculture”. </p> <p>The package includes a few measures that might benefit farmers. But increasing a lumpsum for small farmers from € 1250 to € 2500 does not undo the great imbalance of payments under the CAP whereby 80% of payments go to the 20% biggest farms and companies. </p> <p>The proposals confirm that Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen intends to ignore the outcomes of the ‘Strategic Dialogue for the Future of EU Agriculture’. The main conclusion there was that ‘business as usual’ is not an option for agriculture. This <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/no-vision-left">CEO article shows that agribusiness lobby groups</a> worked hard to undermine the Strategic Dialogue from beginning to end. Consequently, the Vision document published by Agriculture Commissioner Hansen, that was supposed to be based on the Strategic Dialogue, completely ignored those conclusions. And now, they are completely absent from the Omnibus simplification package.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Yet another omnibus (on chemicals) announced (14 May 2025)</h3> <p>Opportunities for industry to weaken chemicals rules are now coming thick and fast. On Monday 12 May, European Commission President von der Leyen held a “Strategic Dialogue with the Chemicals Industry”. In the room <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/going-round-in-circles-in-a-good-way">were</a> 15 industry representatives, including the chemicals industry lobby group <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a>; PFAS / forever chemical producers <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/syensqo-sa?rid=685934152245-39">Syensqo</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/solvay-sa?rid=58089691185-94">Solvay</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/basf-se?rid=7410939793-88">BASF</a>, and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/arkema?rid=35321797057-83">Arkema</a>; plus petro-chemical companies <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/yara-sa?rid=68208004617-79&sid=217451">Yara</a> and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/totalenergies-corbion-bv?rid=510347544351-67">Total Energies</a>. Massively outnumbered were CSOs: green group <a href="https://eeb.org/">EEB</a>, consumer group <a href="https://www.beuc.eu/">BEUC</a>, and trade union representatives. </p> <p>Von der Leyen took the opportunity to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/de/read_25_1198">announce</a> an “Action Plan for the chemical sector” and “a sector-specific Omnibus”, as well as the already-planned Chemicals Industry Package, expected towards the end of the year. According to a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/european-environmental-bureau_toxicfreefuture-euchemicals-reach-activity-7327974813552041987-Q3DJ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAh7Nb4BPV7JHp8HdqjzsMR3hfvUjxiFLCU">report</a> from inside the meeting: “The message from industry was loud: calls for more subsidies, cheaper energy, and fewer regulations.” The Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/de/read_25_1198">says</a> its approach will “ensure consumer protection and competitiveness go hand in hand”, although the risk is clear, especially with the chemicals Omnibus where “simplification” is likely to mean deregulation.</p> <p>Along these lines, on Friday 16 May the Commission will hold what it calls a “reality check” <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Concept%20note%20-%20CLP%20Reality%20Check%20Workshop%2016.5.2025.pdf">workshop</a> on the “simplification” of labels on the packaging of harmful chemical substances. Recently-agreed new rules specified font sizes and advertising rules for such substances to make sure that users could effectively receive essential safety information, thereby protecting human health and the environment. But ‘stakeholders’ are apparently already complaining about the costs of implementing these new rules, even though it is surely a basic duty of those selling chemicals that they properly inform buyers and users about what is in their products. In this case “simplification” seems to be about rolling-back on measures to ensure the proper readability of labels on the packaging of harmful substances. </p> <p>In a new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban">briefing</a>, Corporate Europe Observatory has explained the risk to the proposed universal PFAS restriction to ban forever chemicals, if the Commission proceeds with its much weaker plan to prioritise a ban on PFAS in consumer uses, rather than recognising that consumer exposure to PFAS comes from pretty much all PFAS uses. Check out the briefing and the accompanying series of cartoons by Ralph Underhill <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban">here</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @CartoonRalph </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Commission delivering on chemicals industry deregulation demands (30 April 2025)</h3> <p>Green groups are loudly sounding the alarm as the Commission starts to reveal its <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/a0b483a2-4c05-4058-addf-2a4de71b9a98/library/bddf43f6-f356-4be1-8843-b0cec1ee4592?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC">agenda</a> for the revision of its flagship chemicals rules (the REACH regulation) <a href="https://eeb.org/too-little-too-late-eu-chemical-reforms-threaten-to-roll-back-public-health-protections/">saying</a> that the proposals risk “undoing two decades of progress in protecting people and nature from toxic substances”. According to a presentation in early April, the Commission is backtracking on previous commitments to improve REACH by: diluting the ban on the most hazardous chemicals in consumer products; reconsidering whether to demand industry provides hazard data on polymers, the building blocks of plastics; and weakening commitments to regulate mixtures of chemicals. </p> <p>Meanwhile in a recent <a href="https://eeb.org/library/translating-lobby-speak-what-chemical-industrys-simplification-plan-really-means/">publication</a> the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has pointed out the overlap between the Commission’s proposals for the revision of REACH and the <a href="https://cefic.org/media-corner/newsroom/cefic-publishes-10-point-action-plan-to-simplify-reach/">lobby demands</a> of CEFIC, the EU chemicals industry’s lobby group, and the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">highest-declaring lobby spender</a> in Brussels. In adverts across Brussels, CEFIC claimed to support the European Green Deal, but the EEB’s analysis of CEFIC’s demands <a href="https://eeb.org/too-little-too-late-eu-chemical-reforms-threaten-to-roll-back-public-health-protections/">reveals</a> a “thinly veiled deregulation agenda”, including wanting a loosening of rules for highly hazardous chemicals, and new steps which will delay critical regulatory actions on chemicals by member states. These and other CEFIC proposals are now on the Commission’s agenda. </p> <p>EEB <a href="https://eeb.org/too-little-too-late-eu-chemical-reforms-threaten-to-roll-back-public-health-protections/">said</a>: “The Commission appears willing to trade long-term public health for short-term economic gain and reduced compliance costs for chemical producers”. Swedish NGO ChemSec has <a href="https://chemsec.org/when-i-heard-their-plans-for-reach-my-heart-sank/">said</a> that the Commission’s plans will “in one single sweep” mean a “drastic weakening of the ability to phase out the worst chemicals, increasing the burden on Member States and reducing the protection of human health and the environment.”</p> <p>Not withstanding this analysis that the Commission is delivering on CEFIC’s demands, the industry lobby is keeping up the pressure to demand even more deregulation from the Commission. After the Commission’s proposals were presented, CEFIC’s reaction smacked of a certain lobby entitlement when it <a href="https://cefic.org/media-corner/newsroom/cefic-statement-on-the-latest-reach-discussions-at-caracal/">said</a>: “most of what was presented is identical to proposals made three years ago … we are truly shocked.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @CartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>EU deregulation wave also threatens national-level protections (23 April 2025) </h3> <p>There’s an important dimension of the Von der Leyen Commission’s deregulation drive that hasn’t received much attention so far: the Commission’s plans to roll back and reign in national-level regulations via a major tightening of Single Market enforcement. What exactly the Commission is planning to do will become clear before the summer when it publishes the ‘Single Market Strategy 2025’. The goal is to remove barriers to trade in the Single Market emerging from differences in national-level regulations. That might sound like a good idea, but many of these differences are actually entirely legitimate rules that exist to address societal problems. CEO’s<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf"> June 2023 report</a> on this topic shows that industry lobbies are already actively using Single Market enforcement mechanisms to undermine progressive regulations at the national and municipal levels. Sparked by industry complaints, the Commission intervenes against these rules by interpreting them as potential breaches of EU Single Market law. The end result is often the bogging down of the much-needed social and ecological transition in Europe. A recent example is the weakening of the French government’s ban on short-distance flights between cities with fast train connections. The forthcoming ‘Single Market Strategy 2025’ risks further worsening this problem, giving industry a virtual veto power on national and municipal regulations.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the EU-US trade standoff seems to be radicalising the Commission’s appetite for deregulation. Politico Pro reports that Commissioner Séjourné earlier this month told MEPs that “the barriers in the single market are equal to trade tariffs of some 100 percent for services and about 50 percent for goods”. This mimics the flawed claims by the Trump administration that so-called non-tariff barriers in the EU equals import tariffs and therefore should be removed, including the EU bans on chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef. Séjourné, whose Mission Letter as a Commissioner included the instruction to “speed up the removal of barriers”, also announced “a simpler and more effective infringement procedure”. </p> <p>Industry groups have been lobbying for deregulation via Single Market reform for years, and this has intensified during the last year. A <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-02-11_joint_business_statement_on_the_upcoming_horizontal_single_market_strategy.pdf">joint business lobby group statement </a>earlier this year insists that EU countries should “move away from diverging national rules”. The European Roundtable for Industry (ERT) has had numerous meeting with top Commission officials on this topic and recently <a href="https://ert.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ERT-Response-to-Call-for-Evidence-on-Single-Market-Strategy-Final.pdf">submitted detailed demands for the EU Single Market Strategy 2025</a>. This included demands for a “programme containing 1000+ issues” and “an ambitious 2030 deadline”. The lobbying demands of spiritsEurope are a reminder of what’s at stake if differences in Member State regulations are interpreted as ‘barriers’ to be removed. The alcohol industry lobby group demands “a more rigorous approach” to challenge “unilateral actions from Member States”. In its <a href="https://spirits.eu/media/spiritsnews/112/646">list of “national barriers”</a>, spiritsEurope highlights mandatory health warning labels on alcoholic beverages in Ireland. These labels are actually an example of a government leading by example, based on new <a href="https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health">scientific knowledge about the harms caused by alcohol consumption</a>, thereby providing momentum for health warnings to be introduced in other EU countries, and on the EU level too. If the regulatory space for governments to take the lead is further limited this way, it will severely undermine progress in public health policy-making, and in progressive policy-making more generally.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The return of the chlorinated chicken? Trump administration uses tariffs to push for radical EU deregulation (9 April 2025) </h3> <p>Last week, the Trump administration shocked the world by imposing massive tariffs on imports from most countries around the world, including a 20% tariff on EU imports. It soon became clear that Trump will use this as a bargaining tool to force concessions from the EU. This includes bullying the EU to remove so-called “non-tariff barriers”, which means EU regulations that the US government (wrongly) interprets as unfair obstacles to US exports. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-needs-lower-non-tariff-barriers-including-vat-white-house-trade-adviser-says-2025-04-07/">White House trade adviser Peter Navarro</a> stated that non-tariff barriers, including food safety regulations, are "orders of magnitude" more important than EU tariff rates. </p> <p>Also Elon Musk, although not a fan of Trump’s tariffs, has used the opportunity to criticize EU regulations and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-hopes-us-eu-get-to-zero-tariff-situation/">called for “radical deregulation”</a>. US Commerce Secretary Lutnick said on FOX News: “European Union won’t take chicken from America. They hate our beef, because our beef is beautiful and theirs is weak”. The reality is that the EU has banned sale of chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef due to legitimate concerns over public health and animal welfare. The USTR in a thread on X highlighted the EU's Deforestation-free Supply Chain Regulation (EUDR) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as examples of “unfair trade practices faced by American exporters”. The USTR’s <a href="https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2025NTE.pdf">"2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers"</a>, published last month, lists planned EU restrictions on forever chemicals (PFAS), rules for pesticides and GMOs, and numerous other EU regulations as unacceptable. </p> <p>The TACD, uniting consumer and digital rights groups in the US and EU, <a href="https://tacd.org/wp-content/uploads/TACD-Statement-Tariffs-3-April.pdf">slammed the use of coercive tariffs</a> “as a mean to put pressure on digital, data protection, competition, food safety and sustainability policies”. <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20250402IPR27602/trade-committee-chair-on-us-tariffs-unjustified-illegal-and-disproportionate">MEPs</a> and EU government officials have called upon the European Commission not give into US government blackmailing. But can <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/04/why-progressives-must-organise-stop-eus-deregulation-wave">a European Commission that has itself embarked on radical deregulation</a> be trusted to stand firm in defense of high regulatory standards?</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>A deregulation package on energy – the 6<sup>th</sup> Omnibus proposal </h3> <p>The European Commission has developed a strong appetite for Omnibus proposals, ie. packages of amendments to existing EU laws with a view to simplify and alleviate the regulatory burden, called deregulation in plain language. According to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-simplification-green-energy-laws/">Politico</a>, the executive now has its eyes on renewable energy, mulling an omnibus package that will include changes to the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. They were all a key part of the Fit for 55 package, adopted only in October 2023, and it is far from fully implemented. </p> <p>While the details of the plans are not yet in the public domain, it comes on the back of the first Omnibus package on sustainable reporting, heavily criticized by green organisations as a <a href="https://www.wwf.eu/?17206391/Von-der-Leyens-deregulation-omnibus-A-devastating-blow-to-EU-environmental-objectives">“devastating blow to EU environmental objectives”</a> and a <a href="https://eeb.org/omnibus-a-trojan-horse-for-aggressive-deregulation-say-ngos/">“Trojan horse for aggressive deregulation”</a>. Furthermore, the Commission is considering weakening the European climate law by allowing a bigger proportion of emissions reductions to take place at a late stage before 2040. This would allow energy intensive industries to postpone action on emissions. </p> <p>Omnibus proposals are becoming widespread. The Commission announced 3 Omnibus proposals in its <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/7617998c-86e6-4a74-b33c-249e8a7938cd_en?filename=COM_2025_45_1_annexes_EN.pdf">work programme for 2025</a> from February, including the above, one on investment regulation, and a third on reducing reporting obligations for ‘mid-caps’ – companies that are bigger than SME’s, but not in the biggest league. Since then, the Commission has added <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/13/eu-commission-to-pitch-defence-omnibus-package-in-june-2025">an Omnibus on defence</a>, to be tabled in June this year, and one on agriculture (the CAP). Whether an Omnibus package on energy will be tabled this year, remains unclear. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Trade unions reject the Commission’s “28th regime” plans, fearing social dumping (28 March 2025)</h3> <p>As part of its wide-ranging deregulation program, the European Commission wants to offer companies a lighter set of parallel EU rules (called a “28th regime”) to select from instead of national ones, to "allow companies to benefit from a simpler, harmonised set of rules". It is to include the option of sidestepping rules on “labour law, and tax law.” This could make the 28th regime a powerful new deregulation instrument as the EU’s mandate in these areas is limited as it stands. The trade union federation ETUC worries the 28th regime could undermine workers' rights, based on previous Commission initiatives in this field (including the controversial ‘Bolkestein directive’). “Given these experiences and given the new European political context of massive simplification and deregulation”, <a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/document/response-commissions-plan-28th-company-regime-innovative-companies-defending-workers-and">the ETUC’s Executive Committee states</a>, “there are renewed risks that the Commission will table another tool for companies to circumvent national regulation”. The ETUC calls upon the Commission to “abandon this project” and instead address a range of serious problems that have emerged from the existing Statute for a European Company. <a href="https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/erMLk2wd">In a comment piece</a>, Olivier Roethig of services unions coalition UNI Europa points out that the Commission’s inspiration comes from the US: “in its misguided push for EU-wide deregulation, the commission wants to recreate the US’s lower standards, in particular for ‘innovative’ IT start-ups”. “This new plan”, Roethig warns, “risks becoming a free p ass for companies to bypass national collective bargaining agreements, union rights, and social protections”. Trade unions would mobilise workers across Europe against a proposal of this kind, Roethig concludes. The Commission’s “28th regime” proposal is expected late 2025 or early 2026, so internal decision-making on the content of the proposal is likely to have started.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Proposal to weaken 'Do no significant harm' criteria on chemicals (10 March 2025)</h3> <p>As part of the European Commission's recent Omnibus proposal (see below entry on EU Commission’s Omnibus proposal: full-scale deregulation (26 February 2025)) it is consulting on new options for changing the 'sustainable taxonomy' criteria which require companies to report and assess the use and presence of specific chemical substances. On the table are two options, to either delete the criteria entirely or to narrow their scope (which <em>Chemical Watch</em> reports could see 10,000 substances removed from its scope). If either option goes ahead this would weaken the 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle for chemicals which aims to prevent negative impacts on the EU’s environmental objectives. <em>Politico</em> has <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/194694">reported</a> financial services commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque as saying that the DNSH criteria on pollution prevention have “proven to be extremely burdensome". A group of industry lobby groups including DigitalEurope, Home Appliance Europe, and the Japan Business Council in Europe, had recently <a href="https://www.unife.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/JointLetter_EUTaxonomy_2025.pdf">demanded</a> a review arguing the DNSH criteria were hampering the "competitiveness" of industry. There is a 4 week <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14546-Taxonomy-Delegated-Acts-amendments-to-make-reporting-simpler-and-more-cost-effective-for-companies_en">consultation</a> open on this until 26 March, likely to further swamp civil society and citizens dealing with the plethora of new deregulation initiatives. </p> <p>In a related development, <em>Contexte</em> has now reported that the EU Council's simplification group (created at the end of February to negotiate these Omnibus proposals) may end up handling other proposals branded as 'simplification' by the Commission which could include the all-important revision of the REACH chemicals regulation and the next Common Agricultural Policy. Of course it would ludicrous if the REACH revision was not handled by those with knowledge of chemicals policy within the Council.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The EU deregulation wave - what’s next after the Omnibus package on corporate sustainability? (6 March 2025) </h3> <p>The Commission’s Omnibus package to reopen and drastically weaken three recently agreed corporate sustainability laws is now entering Parliament and Council decision-making. Worryingly, the Commission’s work programme includes at least four other ‘omnibus’ proposals within 2025 (investment, digital legislation, agricultural policy, etc.). But there’s so much more in the pipeline. As shown previously, Von der Leyen has constructed a multidimensional deregulation attack on both existing and future social and environmental standards (see<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/17%20steps%20towards%20a%20deregulation%20-%20a%20guide.pdf"> analysis of at least 17 different deregulation initiatives</a> that are in the pipeline). One of the most problematic initiatives could be coming within months: the Commission’s demand that the European Parliament and Council start applying the same kinds of impact assessments that the Commission uses. A proposal for negotiations on a new Inter-Institutional Agreement with this purpose is scheduled for second quarter 2025. Making parliamentary amendments subject to the kind of business-friendly impact assessments the Commission uses is a longstanding demand from big business lobby groups like the ERT and BusinessEurope, now embraced by the Commission. It’s an absurdly undemocratic proposal that would restrict the freedom of parliament, and force EU decision-making even further into a narrow corporate-friendly pathway. For big business lobby groups, it’s a major priority: <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/position_papers/internal_market/2025-02-11_joint_business_statement_on_the_upcoming_horizontal_single_market_strategy.pdf">in a joint letter last month</a> they ask the Commission to “radically redesign EU policymaking to strengthen the Single Market”, a redesign that includes pro-business impact assessments “in all phases of EU decision-making”. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>EU Commission’s Omnibus proposal: full-scale deregulation (26 February 2025) </h3> <p>As feared, the European Commission’s Omnibus package on three corporate sustainability laws presented earlier today goes far beyond ‘simplification’. “Let’s be clear—this is not simplification, it is full-scale deregulation designed to dismantle corporate accountability and abandon the EU’s Green Deal commitments”, said Nele Meyer, Director of the <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-eu-commissions-omnibus-proposal-is-full-scale-deregulation-designed-to-dismantle-corporate-accountability/">European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)</a>. The changes proposed by the European Commission, the ECCJ states, “are nothing short than a gutting of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), giving reckless corporations a free pass to operate without consequences”. The Commission’s proposal was prepared in a “opaque, undemocratic procedure” and whereas “ big business lobbies were given privileged access to re-shape EU sustainability legislation, workers and communities most affected by corporate harm remained left out”. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lara-wolters-a0572359_commission-proposes-to-cut-red-tape-and-simplify-activity-7300501693387993088-9zWF/">S&D MEP Lara Wolters</a> calls the proposals “crude and badly thought-out, risking actually creating bureaucracy and uncertainty. This is what you get with a rushed process without sufficient consideration, consultation or expertise”. A legal expert called the Omnibus proposal “<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/arribasellier.bsky.social/post/3lj3ho2fi4s2h">one of the worst written legislative drafts I have had to read”</a>. The proposal was pushed through decision-making in a fast-track procedure and texts were only finalised shortly before the Commission’s press conference. The big question is now: will the European Parliament and Council save EU corporate sustainability laws from full-scale deregulation?</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>EU Commission presents detailed plans for unprecedented deregulation agenda, but resistance is growing (21 February 2025)</h3> <p>The 14-page <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8556fc33-48a3-4a96-94e8-8ecacef1ea18_en?filename=250201_Simplification_Communication_en.pdf">“A simpler and faster Europe”</a> document launched last week shows a further escalation of the European Commission’s deregulation plans. The communication reveals additional details on many of the Commission's <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/17%20steps%20towards%20a%20deregulation%20-%20a%20guide.pdf">15+ deregulation tools</a> that we’ve been tracking since last summer, confirming the Commission's intention to massively expand corporate control over EU decision-making and roll back EU regulations that protect people and the environment. In addition to the ‘Omnibus’ package (expected on February 26<sup>th</sup> - re-opening and weakening recently agreed corporate accountability legislation), there will be a series of at least four other such packages coming later in the year (on investment, exemptions for mid-cap companies, digital legislation, agricultural policy, etc.). The communication still refers to the Commission’s intentions as ‘simplification’, but that’s clearly spin. In a letter to Commission President von der Leyen this week, the Socialists & Democrats group in the European Parliament firmly rejects the Commission’s plans to re-open the Corporate Sustainability Due Dilligence Directive (CSDDD), pointing out that “none of these proposals can be described as mere simplification or streamlining, rather they are inherently and unambiguously deregulatory. They do not simply lower the level of ambition, they eliminate it”. The <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-divided-parliament-could-nuke-von-der-leyens-plan-to-slash-red-tape/">growing opposition among progressive MEPs</a> is becoming a significant problem for von der Leyen, raising the question whether she will push through the Omnibus package with the support of the far-right. Meanwhile, in its <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/f80922dd-932d-4c4a-a18c-d800837fbb23_en?filename=COM_2025_45_1_EN.pdf">work programme for 2025</a> - presented the same day as “A simpler and faster Europe” – the Commission unilaterally announced the withdrawal of several important pieces of public interest regulation that have been under discussion for years, including the <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/02/18/lawmakers-reject-commission-decision-to-scrap-planned-ai-liability-rules">AI Liability Directive</a> and the <a href="https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar5e0315d6">Equal Treatment Directive</a> (see <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/7617998c-86e6-4a74-b33c-249e8a7938cd_en?filename=COM_2025_45_1_annexes_EN.pdf">Annexes</a>).</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Tech Commissioner Virkkunen will implement AI Act ‘innovation-friendly’ following Big Tech lobbying</strong> (12 February 2025) </h3> <p>At the AI Action Summit, the EU Commissioner for tech sovereignity Virkkunen has <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/virkkunen-stands-firm-against-american-pushback-against-eu-tech-laws/">said</a> that the Commission will implement the AI Act “in an innovation friendly manner” and that as part of the upcoming omnibus proposals the Commission will simplify the rules and cut red tape on artificial intelligence and tech rules. “I’m also taking this criticism very seriously that we’re getting from SMEs and industry that we have too much bureaucracy and red tape”, Virkkunen said at the Summit. The statements come after aggressive <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/google-eu-rules-advanced-ai-artificial-intelligence-step-in-wrong-direction/">lobbying</a> by Big Tech firms. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=8507138f-6be3-4068-9645-5b40bfa5b31f&page=5">Minutes of lobbying meetings</a> with the Virkunnen’s cabinet shows that Google, Facebook and the tech lobby group DOT Europe have all stepped up pressure against the voluntary code of practice on general purpose AI. Big Tech is successfully using the political momentum to water down EU regulation. The Draghi report has singled out the GDPR and the Artificial Intelligence Act as barriers to competitiveness. Big Tech has also<a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/01/20/us-big-tech-is-ready-for-trump-2-but-is-the-eu"> weaponised</a> the US government in order to push back against EU digital regulation. For instance, at the AI Action Summit, the US Vice-President JD Vance <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/europe-looks-embrace-ai-paris-summits-2nd-day-while-global-consensus-unclear-2025-02-11/">criticized</a> the EU’s “massive regulation” and called for the deregulation of AI. Just one day after Vance’s speech, the<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/tech/news/commission-withdraws-ai-liability-directive-after-vance-attack-on-regulation/"> EU Commissison withdrew the AI liability directive</a> from its work programme.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>EU Commission plans to heavily water down recently agreed corporate accountability laws (7 February 2025) </h3> <p>This will <a href="https://www.responsible-investor.com/eu-omnibus-commission-expected-to-heavily-water-down-csrd-csddd/">happen</a> as part of the Omnibus Simplification Bill, the new Commission's forthcoming proposal to rollback obligations for businesses under corporate accountability laws, the CSRD, CSDDD and the EU Taxonomy. According to Responsible Investor, the scope of the CSRD could be dramatically limited, so around 85% of the companies currently covered will be exempted. No less than 11 different aspects of the CSDDD might be re-opened, including climate transition plans and liabilities. A source mentioned that the planned changes fit the demands made by German, French and Italian big business lobby groups (see below). Meanwhile, the Commission yesterday held an invite-only stakeholder roundtable to discuss the Omnibus package. <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/david330.bsky.social/post/3lhjgnvochc2b">SOMO had a look at the 30 companies on the guest list:</a> "less than 15 percent of the companies attending are SMEs - the vast majority are multi-billion dollar multinational enterprises". No less than eight banks were invited, as well as four fossil fuel giants, including TotalEnergies, Eni, and ExxonMobil. Trade union <a href="https://news.industriall-europe.eu/Article/1205">IndustriAll Europe pointed out</a> that “corporate lobbyists outnumbered representatives of trade unions and NGOs by five to one”. <a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/corporate-lobbyists-dominate-rigged-simplification-roundtable-corporate-sustainability">ETUC Deputy General Secretary Isabelle Schömann</a> commented: “This is a deregulation agenda. The general interest as well as the human rights dimension are being totally overlooked in favour of the demands of a few big businesses with a history of violating workers’ rights and polluting the environment.” A large number of NGOs and trade unions gathered to protest outside of the Commission headquarters where the roundtable took place.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--wide-image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-default ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </picture> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Corporate lobby groups call for rollback of environmental standards (29 January 2025)</h3> <p>The <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/598bd657-45af-4b2b-93b1-f9ffd6f0e0bb"><em>Financial Times</em></a> reports that a lobby letter by the main business lobby groups groups in France, Germany and Italy (BDI, Confindustria and MEDEF) demands the adjustment of EU laws “to match the standards of our competitors where appropriate” and for the forthcoming Omnibus law to go beyond cutting back only on reporting obligations. MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, vice-president of the liberal Renew group in the European parliament, "said that businesses were using the opportunity presented by Trump’s deregulatory agenda to call for cuts in Europe 'because a lot of them don’t like the environmental agenda'”. The letter calls "for the alignment of the EU’s regulatory framework with the realities of global competition", a clear call for lowering social and environmental standards.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Von der Leyen’s ‘Competitiveness Compass’: deregulation threatens social and environmental protection</strong> (CEO <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/01/von-der-leyens-competitiveness-compass-deregulation-threatens-social-and-environmental">press release</a>, 29 January 2025)</h3> <p>The European Commission's new Competitiveness Compass confirms widespread concerns that President Ursula von der Leyen's administration is unleashing a sweeping deregulation agenda— at the expense of democracy and social and environmental protections. The Competitiveness Compass defines corporate competitiveness as the Commission's overarching goal, with deregulation positioned as the key method to achieve it. The Competitiveness Compass speaks a clearer language than Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines from July, in that wording on “maintaining high standards” is practically absent. It is becoming crystal clear that ‘simplification’ is, in fact, about deregulation. The Compass, moreover, doubles down on giving corporate lobby groups far-reaching new powers to control EU decision-making.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>17 steps towards deregulation (29 January, 2025)</h3> <p>An <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/17%20steps%20towards%20a%20deregulation%20-%20a%20guide.pdf">updated version</a> of CEO's overview of the many tools the Commission has adopted to strike, dilute, delay or prevent regulation in the coming years. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Resist Big Tech pressure for weakening of DSA and DMA enforcement (29 January 2025)</h3> <p>35+ public interest groups have <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/EU-resist-Big-Tech-bullying-open-letter-Jan-2025.pdf">urged</a> EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and her colleagues to "resist political pressure from Big Tech companies and prioritise bold action to protect our democracy and economy. If the EU wants to uphold its sovereignty it must not pause or weaken the enforcement of its rules." "We have observed with increasing concern how the CEOs of US Big Tech companies have taken turns to ingratiate themselves with the Trump administration in part to mobilise it against EU rules such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), competition policy and the Digital Services Act (DSA)." "Europe must not be bullied by the likes of Musk and Trump into weakening its DSA and DMA enforcement."</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Omnibus proposal will create costly confusion and lower protection for people and the planet</strong> (14 January 2025)</h3> <p>In a <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/publications/joint-statement-on-omnibus/">joint statement</a>, over 160 NGOs and trade unions, insist the EU must show leadership in the protection of human rights, environment and climate, and prevent further setbacks to corporate accountability. The ongoing backlash against the EU’s sustainability framework comes at a time when business accountability is critically needed. The European Commission's proposal for an Omnibus law (expected in the end of February) will amend the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the Taxonomy Regulation.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>EU Competitiveness Compass must safeguard social and environmental protections</strong> (13 January 2025)</h3> <p>In an <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/01/joint-letter-ursula-von-der-leyen-protect-people-nature-and-democracy-eu-regulations">open letter</a> to European Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen, 270 civil society organisations, trade unions, consumer groups, farmers organisations, civil rights groups and environmental organisations, call on the Commission to shun deregulation and prioritise the protection of people, nature, and democracy in its decision-making processes. This warning comes ahead of the announcement of the EU ‘Competitiveness Compass', which is supposed to guide the EU's efforts in enhancing its ‘economic competitiveness’. The <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/eu-competitiveness-compass-must-safeguard-social-and-environmental-protections/">press release for the statement</a> points out that “Von der Leyen’s deregulation agenda is a corporate dream come true: reopening already agreed EU laws will give corporate lobby groups new opportunities to weaken social and environmental standards in laws that they dislike.“ </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Posted workers: Social costs of Commission plan outweigh savings</strong> (13 November 2024)</h3> <p>The trade union confederation ETUC has <a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/posted-workers-social-costs-commission-plan-outweigh-savings">voiced its concerns</a> about the Commission's proposal for a single EU system for the declaration of posted workers. Such a system could help ensure better compliance with and enforcement of rules, but the proposed regulation "clearly prioritises cutting costs for businesses at the expense of Europe’s most vulnerable group of workers". The ETUC points out that "the social cost of European Commission plans to weaken rules on the posting of workers will be far higher than the small savings which would be made by businesses." ETUC Deputy General Secretary Isabelle Schömann calls the proposal "a clear example of the false economy of the Commission’s Trump-style deregulation agenda."</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>16 steps towards deregulation - A guide to how the new Commission’s deregulation tools can undermine the public interest (November 2024)</h3> <p>Based on analysis of key Commission documents and statements by Commissioners, we have <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2024/11/16-steps-towards-deregulation">identified</a> 16 different new deregulation initiatives that the new European Commission is currently preparing. In this explainer, we have divided them into three categories: 1) systemic hurdles for EU level regulation – and roll-back – that will be applied across the board 2) regulatory escape routes that will allow companies to avoid regulation 3) hurdles for and roll-back of national level regulation.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Von der Leyen's 'mission letters' let slip deregulation agenda of next commissioners (31 October 2024)</h3> <p>CEO went through Von der Leyen’s priorities for each of the candidate-commissioners (the Mission Letters). We found over 15 different tools for systemic deregulation and slashing standards; most new, others harsher versions of existing ones. In this <a href="https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar3d655039">op-ed</a>, we zoom in on a handful of the most worrying components of the deregulation machine that von der Leyen intends to construct. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The EU's deregulation frenzy: what's at stake? (episode of EU Watchdog Radio, 7 October 2024)</h3> <p>Double deregulation, competitiveness checks, rule of law or the omnibus law, it can all sound like technocratic gibberish, but they are all pieces of the downward spiral in social standards that are in immediate risk. But this social dumping is not the only challenge ahead, the same applies to environmental protection. This <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2024/10/eus-deregulation-frenzy-whats-stake">episode</a> takes us beyond these unpronounceable words to discuss what is really at stake and what civil society should do about it.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>'Competitiveness': inside the troubling corporate blueprint for the coming Commission (16 September 2024)</h3> <p>As this <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">article</a> shows, the Commission’s plans for the next five years shows ‘competitiveness’ will be the uncontested yardstick for the EU. This is a big win for corporate lobby groups like the European Round Table for Industry (ERT) and BusinessEurope. Their lobby campaigns have resulted in heavy fingerprints all over Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's political guidelines, which set out the main priorities for the next five years. As a consequence, we risk a disastrous half-decade of deregulation, while climate change, the environment, equality and social rights are put on the backburner – all in the name of ‘competitiveness’.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">18.02.2020</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/better-regulation-corporate-friendly-deregulation-disguise" hreflang="en">'Better Regulation': corporate-friendly deregulation in disguise</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>New video series</h1> <p>Joana — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 08:59:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Check out our weekly new explainer videos on topics ranging from lobbying to deregulation </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Sometimes, what we do can sound complicated. So, we decided to create a series of simple videos to explain some of the topics. These range from the 28th regime to the attacks on civil society from the right and far right at the European Parliament. Watch this space and check out our new videos, released every Tuesday!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Free lobby tour on the EU's deregulation frenzy</h1> <p>Joana — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 15:49:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm</strong>!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm</strong>!</p> <p>We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it. <br><br>Sign in at: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=10887&qid=1802608">ceo@corporateeurope.org</a> (until Sunday 15 March)</p> <p>Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours</p> <p>Since 1997 we at Corporate Europe Observatory have investigated, revealed and campaigned on the massive power enjoyed by big business lobbyists in the EU. In this lobby tour, we will address case-studies showing how corporate capture has stood in the way of the public good and has influenced and even steered decision-making processes at the European-level, on the topic of deregulation. We will visit <em>in loco</em> the lobby of the offices of these ‘barons’ to the EU bubble and maybe if we’re luck we may even spot some of them!</p> <p>Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/support-ceo">Donations to support our work</a> are very welcome.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Watchdog organisations issue call to withdraw Aura Salla’s appointment as Digital Omnibus rapporteur</h1> <p>Bram Vranken — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">25.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Aura Salla, a former Meta lobbyist who is now an MEP, was appointed rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus. In an open letter, seven watchdog organisations are calling on the ITRE coordinators to withdraw this appointment.</p> <p>The letter <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/RE%20%E2%80%93%20Call%20to%20withdraw%20Aura%20Salla%E2%80%99s%20appointment%20as%20rapporteur%20of%20the%20Digital%20Omnibus.pdf">is also available here</a>.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Dear ITRE coordinator,</p> <p>On Wednesday, 11 February, it was announced that the MEP Aura Salla has been appointed ITRE rapporteur on the Digital Omnibus, which aims to ‘simplify’ EU data rules, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive.</p> <p><strong>A history of lobbying against EU digital rules on behalf of Meta</strong></p> <p>We, the undersigned watchdog organisations, wish to express our utmost concern regarding this appointment.</p> <p>From May 2020 to April 2023, Aura Salla held an executive lobbying position at Meta Platforms, serving as Public Policy Director and Head of EU Affairs. In this role, she extensively lobbied the EU, including the European Parliament, on behalf of her then-employer, regarding EU privacy rules. Ms Salla was also responsible for Meta’s whole lobbying team, with many of her then-colleagues still responsible for lobbying Members of the European Parliament.</p> <p>Appointing a former Big Tech lobbyist to oversee both the revision and weakening of those same laws raises serious questions about undue influence over the legislative process.</p> <p>Meta has a long and systemic history of non-compliance with the GDPR. Over the past five years, <a href="https://www.enforcementtracker.com/">the company has been fined seven times</a> for GDPR non-compliance, totalling €2.6 billion in fines.</p> <p>The company has a vested interest in weakening the GDPR through the Digital Omnibus and can exploit its close ties with Ms Salla to achieve this. Ms Salla has on several instances met her former employer, including a lobby meeting in September 2024 and another one in January 2025.</p> <p>Moreover, Ms Salla has a repeated history of obscuring potential conflicts of interest. In April 2025, she sold her stocks in a defence company following <a href="https://archive.is/20250401134403/https://www.ftm.eu/articles/eu-lawmaker-defence-stocks-divest-conflict-of-interest#selection-819.71-819.231">reporting by the news website Follow The Money</a>. Ms Salla had never reported those stocks in her declaration of private interests. As far as we are aware, there was no official investigation or assessment of the troubling conflict of interest inherent to holding stock in a company while discussing a major increase in subsidies for that sector.</p> <p>In her <a href="https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/DCI-98219-2026-02-12-533571_en.pdf">declaration of awareness for her role as Rapporteur </a>of the Digital Omnibus, she failed to indicate her previous work at Meta as a potential conflict of interest as required by Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the European parliament.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Meta has a special interest in the Digital Omnibus</strong></p> <p>The Digital Omnibus has already raised significant concerns among civil society, member states, data protection authorities, and academics regarding its potential to undermine the EU’s digital rulebook. <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-EU-must-uphold-hard-won-protections-for-digital-human-rights.pdf">More than 130 civil society organisations and trade unions</a> have warned of the biggest rollback of digital rights in EU history, calling for an end to attempts to reopen the GDPR, the ePrivacy Regulation and the AI Act.</p> <p>Furthermore, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">an analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl</a> reveals that the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Omnibus closely aligns with the demands of Big Tech companies and their business associations. Meta, in particular, is among the most vocal companies advocating for the weakening of the EU’s digital rulebook, particularly the GDPR.</p> <p>Over the past year, the company has intensified its lobby campaign against the EU’s digital rules. It has <a href="https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/Meta-AI-RFI-2025.pdf">called</a> the EU’s digital rules a “hostile regulatory regime” and is deploying substantive means in Brussels to influence EU policy-making with an annual lobby budget of more than €10 million.</p> <p>During this second Trump administration Meta has sought to intensify its ties to the White House, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8j9e1x9z2xo">donating $1m</a> to its inauguration fund and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/zuckerberg-urges-trump-to-stop-eu-from-screwing-with-fining-us-tech-companies/">calling</a> for opposition to EU tech legislation. Since then Trump has <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-question-report-sanction-eu-officials-dsa-donald-trump/">threatened</a> the EU with tariffs due to the DSA and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-targets-former-eu-commissioner-activists-with-visa-bans-over-alleged-2025-12-23/">imposed</a> travel bans on a former commissioner and anti-hate speech campaigners.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Need for procedural propriety</strong></p> <p>The Digital Omnibus process is already tainted. The Commission is rushing these Omnibus proposals through at breakneck speed, bypassing rules on inclusive and transparent decision-making, and running counter to the EU’s Better Regulation rules, <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/205297">as stressed by the European Ombudsman in a recent inquiry</a>.</p> <p>It is then fundamental that the European Parliament scrutinises the Digital Omnibus with the utmost caution to ensure that fundamental rights protections and safeguards are not weakened at the moment they are under severe pressure from Big Tech companies and the Trump administration. This has to be done by upholding an open and transparent process that prevents potential conflicts of interest or privileged access from arising.</p> <p>Therefore, the appointment of Ms Salla as the lead negotiator on behalf of ITRE is not just perplexing, it is highly misguided. We call on you to withdraw this appointment.</p> <p><strong>Signed by:</strong></p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)<br>LobbyControl<br>BLOOM<br>Transparency International EU<br>The Good Lobby<br>Observatoire des multinationales<br>SOMO</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights" hreflang="en">Article by article, how Big Tech shaped the EU’s roll-back of digital rights</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter to withdraw Aura Salla's appointment as rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/RE%20%E2%80%93%20Call%20to%20withdraw%20Aura%20Salla%E2%80%99s%20appointment%20as%20rapporteur%20of%20the%20Digital%20Omnibus.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter to withdraw Aura Salla's appointment as rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>The ‘Clean’ Industrial Deal: a year of dirty lobbying</h1> <p>Pascoe Sabido — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:45:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">24.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>On the first anniversary of the European Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal it’s clearer than ever that it’s not so clean and definitely not green. We track the very heavy industry lobbying involved, the result of which is a focus on deregulation, a discarding of climate solutions, and the throwing of public money at some of the continent’s most polluting companies.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Introduction</strong></p> <p>On 25 February 2025, the European Commissioned launched its flagship Clean Industrial Deal (CID) with much fanfare. A blueprint <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">written by and for industry</a>, it covered everything from critical raw materials and the circular economy to carbon border taxes, affordable energy and low-carbon hydrogen. Framed as a cornerstone of the EU’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">‘competitiveness’ agenda</a>, the Commission declared it would resuscitate the continent’s ailing industrial base by providing cheap energy, access to raw materials, and a pathway to decarbonisation, thereby meeting the EU’s climate commitments and boosting its clean tech sector. </p> <p>However, a year later it is clearer than ever that in reality it is more of a Dirty Industrial Deal. It is championing the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">weakening of regulations</a> (known as ‘simplification’) that protect the public and the environment, while creating a myriad of less than ‘simple’ mechanisms to throw money at some of the EU’s most polluting companies. Worse, the ‘decarbonisation’ part has been substantially downgraded, although support for so-called climate solutions like <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-iv-hydrogen-carbon-capture">carbon capture and storage and fossil hydrogen</a> still are on course to prolong keep the continent on fossil-fuels.</p> <p>On the CID’s one-year anniversary, Corporate Europe Observatory takes a closer look at what lobbying has taken place around it.<sup>1 </sup>We found more than <strong>750 meetings</strong> with top-level Commission officials, across a staggering <strong>16 different departments</strong> (DGs). That’s more than three meetings per working day. What’s more, <strong>90 per cent of them were with business interests</strong>, while only <strong>eight per cent were with civil society organisations</strong>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>A year of lobbying for a Dirty Industrial Deal</strong></p> <p>Because the CID promised to introduce, alter or accelerate whole swathes of new and existing acts, packages, plans and initiatives, it has been a key target for dirty industry lobbying. Almost <strong>500 different business groups</strong> and their representatives met the Commission to discuss its contents. Highly active industry lobbies include <strong>ArcelorMittal</strong> (18 meetings) and French nuclear giant <strong>EDF</strong> (12 meetings). </p> <p>While business interests accounted for 90 per cent of all meetings, <strong>NGOs made up just over five per cent</strong>, and <strong>trade unions a paltry one per cent</strong>. That’s particularly worrying, given how aggressively business has been lobbying to weaken protections for workers and the environment, and is sidelining those who are supposed to defend those interests. However, it reflects the broader pro-business bias that has been baked into this Commission.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Top files targeted</strong> <strong>by lobbyists</strong></p> <p>CEO investigated lobby meetings directly about the CID, but also on the acts, packages, plans and initiatives it mentioned across its 25 pages. Here are its top five files targeted by lobbyists (business and civil society alike), as well as a quick description of what they are: <br> </p> <ul> <li><strong>The Clean Industrial Deal </strong>– <strong>162 meetings</strong> <strong>–</strong> the EU Commission’s flagship programme for 2025-2029, which claims to make Europe competitive by supporting heavy industry and clean tech. Europe’s biggest polluters have lobbied to ensure it includes an array of handouts for technologies that will lock in a fossil-fuelled economy, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-iv-hydrogen-carbon-capture">such as carbon capture</a>.<br> </li> <li><strong>The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) – 145 meetings –</strong> a carbon border tax intended to ensure EU companies investing in low-carbon production don’t get undercut by cheaper and more polluting imports. The CID <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">said</a> it would “substantially simplify” CBAM by reducing how many companies it covers and their reporting requirements, which duly happened. It is still the subject of fierce industry lobbying to weaken it further.<br> </li> <li><strong>The Circular Economy Act – 65 meetings – </strong>reducing, reusing and recycling materials as part of a circular economy (and reducing dependence on China, which has a near-monopoly on rare earth metals refining, and many other critical raw materials), was a key plank of the CID, which also pledged to launch a new Clean Industrial Dialogue on Circularity to gather input for the upcoming Act. <br> </li> <li><strong>The Industrial Accelerator Act – 53 meetings – </strong>a core part of the CID, which initially promised to accelerate the decarbonisation of European industry, but is clearly focused on reindustrialising the EU by slashing permitting regulations, with decarbonisation an additional goal (the word “decarbonisation was dropped from its name in October 2025). It wants to introduce voluntary green labelling schemes for low-carbon versions of products like steel or cement, but is letting industry design them and self-report. The Act has been repeatedly delayed due to <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eus-made-in-europe-proposal-suffers-another-delay/ar-AA1WSX9N">controversy</a> over its ‘Made in Europe’ local content provisions.<strong> </strong><br> </li> <li><strong>Automotive Action Plan – 45 meetings – </strong>the first industry-specific action plan outlined in the CID, intended to halt the decline of Europe’s car industry as China outcompetes it. Supposedly focused on electric vehicles and domestic battery production, it has also seen vehicle emissions targets weakened - it's unclear how prolonging fossil fuelled cars will help the EU compete with the Chinese market. </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Who was lobbying for a Dirty Industrial Deal?</strong></p> <p>The most intensive lobbying over the past 12 months, with 39 meetings, was conducted by <strong>EUROFER</strong>, the European Steel Association. While itself a modest actor – reporting spending of less than a million on EU-level lobbying per year and employing eight staff members – it represents some of Europe’s industrial giants. These include Germany’s ThyssenKrupp, whose subsidiary is a <a href="https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/german-arms-industry-on-a-growth-trajectory">key part</a> of the country’s arms industry, and Luxemburg-based mining and steel giant ArcelorMittal, which is one of Europe’s <a href="https://disclose.ngo/en/article/arcelormittal-public-money-thrown-at-one-of-the-worst-polluters">most polluting</a> – and publicly subsidised – companies. </p> <p>Steel has been a hot topic in Brussels over the past year, with the EU introducing its Steel and Metals Action Plan in March 2025, delaying its phase-out of combustion engines in exchange for the automotive industry making emissions cuts through so-called “green steel”, and more recently trying to protect domestic producers through local content requirements for public procurement under the Industrial Accelerator Act. The steel lobby has been busy. </p> <p><strong>ArcelorMittal</strong> has its interests well represented by EUROFER, where it is Vice-President, but it is also number two on the list of most frequent visitors to the Commission, with 18 meetings. Despite backtracking on its own climate commitments, it continues to <a href="https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/media/news-articles/arcelormittal-europe-urges-faster-implementation-of-steel-and-metals-action-plan">push for more support</a> from the EU. A theme across many steel producers, which laud “green steel” and local content requirements as a means of revive the industry, but currently the bill for the green “premium” looks to be falling on taxpayers through public procurement. </p> <p>Third is French nuclear energy giant <strong>EDF</strong> (12), followed by the trade association <strong>European Aluminium</strong> (11), and <strong>Cement Europe</strong> (11). A key topic for all of them was the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (see above), which the CID <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">pledged</a> to “substantially simplify” so it wasn’t a “burden” for industry.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Frequent visitors</strong></p> <p>Looking at all lobby groups that had at least five meetings with senior Commission officials in the year following the CID’s release, there are some clear takeaways:<br> </p> <ul> <li>The <strong>metals and mining</strong> sector dominated: it accounted for <strong>41 per cent of meetings</strong>, 136 in total, despite accounting for just over 30 per cent of organisations lobbying; it also made up <strong>6 of the top 10</strong> most frequent visitors.<sup>2<a id="ref-ftn1"></a></sup> It has been a big backer of the CID and how it can help weaken environmental standards in the name of building more polluting projects. CBAM was its number one concern.<br> </li> <li>The <strong>energy sector</strong> was the second biggest (<strong>13 per cent</strong> of meetings), followed by the <strong>automotive sector</strong> (<strong>11 per cent</strong>). However, despite only accounting for 11 per cent of meetings, organisations from the automotive sector had the biggest lobbying firepower, employing 190 lobbyists and declaring a combined yearly lobbying budget of almost €15m. As well as lobbying for more protection from Chinese competition, which it is <a href="https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/energy/2025-posts/the-eu-automotive-action-plan-whats-changing-and-what-to-expect">getting</a> via the Automotive Action Plan, the industry has successfully lobbied to delay the ban on combustion engines. This will not only increase air and climate pollution, but also see the industry fall further behind in the technological race with China, undermining its own Action Plan.<br> </li> <li><strong>Trade associations</strong> proved once again to be key to lobbying in Brussels, accounting for almost <strong>two thirds of meetings</strong> with senior EU officials. EUROFER (38), European Aluminium (11), and EUROMETAUX (10) took three of the top four spots, while chemicals industry association CEFIC, a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">key protagonist</a> behind the competitiveness agenda and the Clean Industrial Deal itself, had eight meetings.<br> </li> <li><strong>NGOs</strong> made up just <strong>four per cent</strong> of the most frequent visitors, with Transport and Environment, on 9 meetings, one of only two to make the cut.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Welcoming hosts</strong></p> <p>Public records show 16 different EU departments were subjected to lobbying over the CID, including the office of President Von der Leyen. This spanned Commissioners, their cabinets, Director Generals, their deputies, and heads of unit. However, this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as lower-level staff – often the target of lobbying operations – are not obliged to disclose their meetings. </p> <p>Who were the most welcoming Commissioners and cabinets? </p> <ul> <li>First place, Executive Vice-President for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy Stéphane Séjourné and his cabinet: together they had <strong>131 meetings</strong> with 192 different lobby groups on the CID and related files. This shouldn’t be a huge surprise, as Séjourné oversees DG GROW and is responsible for the CID and many of its related files such as the Industrial Accelerator Act.<br> </li> <li>Second place, Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth, Wopke Hoekstra: along with his cabinet he had <strong>60 meetings</strong>.</li> </ul> <p>In contrast, the Executive Vice President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition Teresa Ribera, who is supposed to jointly coordinate work on the Clean Industrial Deal, had less than 15 per cent of the meetings held by Séjourné. She and her cabinet were in fifth place, with <strong>20 meetings</strong>, only a third of those held by Hoesktra and his cabinet.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>One year on, and it’s clear that lobbying around the EU’s Dirty Industrial Deal has been dominated by the same big polluters that crafted the initial proposal. It was <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">already intended</a> to serve the interests of Europe’s heavy industry, but the lobbying that has taken place in the year since its launch has ensured it is even dirtier, undermining the rights of workers, public health and nature. Civil society is barely at the table, while industry enjoys an open door. This is in part due to the ideological commitment of this Commission in conflating the industry interests with the public interest, but also reflects the gaping difference in resources between Europe’s biggest corporations and a civil society sector <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/boycott-eps-scrutiny-working-group-ngos">increasingly under attack</a> – financially and politically. To create an industrial policy that serves all Europeans and respects planetary boundaries means listening to those most impacted and not those narrowly focused on profit making.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Methodology and disclaimer</strong></p> <p>The data used for this article is publicly available across multiple European Commission websites, but has been extracted and compiled from two separate lobbying databases that both aggregate the information: <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts.eu</a> and <a href="https://integritywatch.eu/ecmeetings.php">EU Integrity Watch</a>. </p> <p>The data covers meetings between 26 February 2025 - 3 February 2026. However, many meetings that took place in early 2026 were not yet publicly disclosed so were not included in the data.</p> <p>For more information on the data collation, please contact <a href="#" data-mail-to="prb/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em><strong>Footnotes</strong></em><br> </p> <ol> <li>CEO looked into the lobby meetings on the CID directly, as well on those initiatives mentioned in <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">The Clean Industrial Deal</a>: Affordable Energy Action Plan; Automotive action plan; Bioeconomy Strategy; Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism; CfD; Chemicals Industry Package; Circular Economy Act; Clean Industrial Deal; Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework; Clean Trade and Investment Partnership; Critical Raw Materials Act; Ecodesign; Energy taxation; EU content requirements; Foreign Subsidies Regulation; General Block Exemption Regulation; Greening corporate fleets; Grids Package; Industrial (Decarbonisation) Accelerator Act; Industrial Decarbonisation Bank; Lead markets; Low-carbon hydrogen Network Charges; Permitting; Power Purchase Agreements; Quality jobs roadmap; Revision of Public Procurement Directives; Skills Portability Initiative; Social leasing; Steel and metals action plan; Sustainable Transport Investment Plan; Union of Skills<br> </li> <li>The ten most frequent visitors were: The European Steel Association (39); ArcelorMittal (18); EDF (12), European Aluminium (11); Cement Europe (11); EUROMETAUX (10); Transport and Environment (9); Outokumpu Oyj (9); BUSINESSEUROPE (9); Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe (8)</li> </ol> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.05.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness" hreflang="en">The Dirty Industrial Deal FAQs Part I: Competitiveness</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">16.09.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission" hreflang="en">'Competitiveness': inside the troubling corporate blueprint for the coming Commission </a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.03.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>In memory of Susan George</h1> <p>Kenneth Haar — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:20:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The world has lost an important voice committed to social justice and democracy. Susan George was an invaluable author and activist. We at CEO have lost a staunch ally and a dear friend.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We at CEO we are deeply saddened to learn that our staunch ally, source of inspiration, helpful comrade, and very dear friend Susan George, has died. </p> <p>A sharp writer and author, Susan wrote passionately about social justice and democracy, from the publication of her first book <em>How the Other Half Dies</em> in 1976. She wrote book after book, all of which inspired thousands of people to act. </p> <p>She was always so much more than a writer, she was an activist who helped create movements. She will be remembered as a key figure in the fight against the IMF and the World Bank in the 80’s and 90’s, and for her work for debt cancellation for the Global South. She was important to Transnational Institute, and she will be remembered as one of the founders of the alter-globalisation movement, including for her role in establishing the ATTAC movement. </p> <p>To us at CEO, she was not a distant star, she was a friend among us. Susan sat on our organisation’s board from the outset, and remained there for two decades, accompanying us through countless struggles and campaigns. Whether the subject was the WTO and global trade, about lack of democracy in the EU, the euro crisis or corporate power in all its shapes and forms, she was always sharp, perceptive, inspiring and helpful. A lot of our work has her fingerprints. </p> <p>Some of the things she said about us made us blush. Such as this: “These researchers do what I have recommended ever since my first book: “study the rich and powerful, not the poor and powerless. The poor already know what is wrong with their lives and if you really want to help them, you should help them to understand the forces that keep them where they are." Needless to say, perhaps, is that is a good description of her own work. </p> <p>She was an invaluable voice. We are so grateful to Susan, for what she did for our shared causes, and who she was when she was with us in Brussels or elsewhere. We miss her.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Behind the chemical industry lobby blitz to undermine EU safety</h1> <p>Vicky Cann — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:33:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Op ed in EU Observer and Apache </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">16.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Harmful chemicals in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a>. ‘Forever chemicals’ / PFAS in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y">dental floss</a>. Known carcinogens in <a href="https://chemsec.org/reports/lost-at-sea/">lipstick lids</a>. These are just three examples of toxic chemicals in everyday products that reveal how the EU’s flagship chemicals policy, <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>, is not delivering for citizens.</p> <p>But it is increasingly clear that the planned — and much-needed — robust revision of EU chemicals rules is being derailed by corporate interests.</p> <p><em>This op ed was originally published by </em><a href="https://euobserver.com/202912/behind-the-chemical-industry-lobby-blitz-to-undermine-eu-safety/"><em>EU Observer</em></a><em> and in Flemish by </em><a href="https://apache.be/2026/02/12/lobbyoffensief-chemische-industrie-ondermijnt-broodnodige-hervorming-eu-beleid"><em>Apache</em></a><em>.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>While REACH has undoubtedly helped to switch some production away from hazardous chemicals, these rules — now 20 years old — are too often slow, inefficient, and have loopholes.</p> <p>As a result, EU citizens are still exposed to harmful chemicals on a daily basis. The health, environmental, and economic consequences of this are huge — and growing. </p> <p>The European Environment Agency <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/chemicals">says</a> that “according to some estimates, about eight percent of deaths can be attributed to hazardous chemicals. These numbers could be underestimated, given that we are only aware of the health effects of a small portion of chemicals in use today.”</p> <p>That’s why REACH needs urgent reform, to better do the job it was set up to do.</p> <p>The good news is that in 2020, as part of the European Green Deal, the first Ursula von der Leyen commission promised that REACH would be revised.</p> <p>This was linked to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and citizens were promised that REACH’s processes would be modernised, to make it far quicker and more effective to tackle harmful chemicals.</p> <h3>And the bad news…</h3> <p>The extremely bad news is that, five years on, the second von der Leyen Commission has yet to publish a proposal to reform REACH and start to deliver a zero chemical pollution environment.</p> <p>Instead corporate privileged access and lobby spin — alongside Brussels’ <a href="https://euobserver.com/202590/deregulation-tops-leaders-retreat-but-critics-point-to-investment-gap-and-corporate-lobbying/">current deregulation mania</a> and hostility to strong green rules — is derailing the Commission’s previouspromise.</p> <p>New <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">research</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory lays bare this privileged corporate access. In 2025 industry had 93 high level meetings with commissioners and their cabinets on REACH; NGOs, only 19.</p> <p>Our research has also exposed the use of spin and other well-recognised lobby tactics in the operation, by the chemicals industry and its allies, to undermine a progressive REACH reform.</p> <p>These have included: using eye-catchingly high potential industry costs; ignoring the health and environmental benefits of regulation; undermining science; and making misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work.</p> <p>There is a clear pattern of extensive industry lobbying opposing proposals which would make a big difference in tackling harmful chemicals. These include bringing polymers (the ‘fundamental building blocks of plastics’) into REACH so problematic ones can be regulated; dealing with the ‘cocktail effect’ when chemicals are used together; and extending the mechanism to get harmful substances out of day-to-day products.</p> <p>Instead, industry is promoting its own agenda to revise REACH. In particular it is demanding an additional upfront filter on EU regulatory action, which would increase industry’s opportunities to influence decision-making early on, and likely discourage member states proposing bans on harmful chemicals to take action.</p> <h3>From Antwerp to Alden Biesen</h3> <p>There is perhaps no better example of the corporate influence that the chemicals industry holds over the EU than the annual CEFIC-organised jamboree held in Antwerp last week, where commission president von der Leyen reported back on her delivery of industry’s agenda.</p> <p>Two years ago the Antwerp Declaration was launched at this event.</p> <p>This is industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">“shadow roadmap”</a> for the EU which, while framed as something that will boost the economy, is actually an agenda for corporate welfare and the dismantling of the EU’s democratic safeguards. </p> <p>Last year von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_628">told</a> the assembled corporate interests that her commission’s policies, including the so-called Clean Industrial Deal, “delivers on each and every one of the 10 recommendations in the Antwerp Declaration”.</p> <p>This year industry’s Antwerp meeting was swiftly followed by an informal European Council summit in Alden Biesen, rural Belgium, which <a href="https://euobserver.com/202382/europes-democratic-winter-how-eu-leaders-impose-deregulation-bypassing-citizens-and-meps/">discussed further ideas to dismantle European social and environmental protections</a>, in a <a href="https://euobserver.com/201594/eu-leaders-retreat-needs-to-hear-less-about-deregulation-from-draghi/">misdirected effort</a> to boost competitiveness. Von der Leyen hotfooted it to the Belgian countryside with industry demands ringing in her ears.</p> <h3>Time for a chemicals lobby firewall</h3> <p>The EU’s chemicals regulations are already under attack.</p> <p>The ‘defence readiness omnibus’ proposes to weaken REACH, while rules on chemicals labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers are being weakened via the ‘chemicals omnibus’.</p> <p>There should be <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">no deregulation</a> of any chemicals rules via omnibuses.</p> <p>Considering the privileged access and spin we see in Brussels today, alongside the chemicals industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">long history</a> of undermining science to weaken or derail regulation, it is overdue for decision-makers to avoid interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals and their allies.</p> <p>These lobbies have significant financial conflicts of interest, which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of promoting and protecting health and the environment. The chemical industry and its allies must be challenged at every step.</p> <p>Maybe then EU citizens will get the REACH chemicals rules that they were promised.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Revealed: industry’s lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform</h1> <p>Vicky Cann — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 23:01:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Today, as President Ursula von der Leyen returns to Antwerp to report back to the chemicals industry on how her European Commission is delivering for them, and EU leaders prepare to meet in Alden Biesen to discuss further rolling-back of social and environmental protections, it is increasingly clear that a strong revision of EU chemicals rules is being derailed by corporate interests.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Corporate Europe Observatory’s new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">article</a>, “REACHing out: Industry’s 2025 lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform”, exposes how corporate privileged access and lobby spin – alongside Brussels’ wider deregulation mania and hostility to strong green rules – is derailing the Commission’s previous ambition to deliver a progressive reform of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation, also known as <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>.</p> <p>Industry’s use of spin and other well-recognised lobby tactics, have included: using eye-catchingly high industry costings; ignoring health and environmental benefits of regulation; undermining science; and misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work.</p> <p>We also reveal how industry dominated access to the Commission's highest levels on the topic of REACH: in 2025 industry had 93 high level meetings with Commissioners and Cabinets on REACH; NGOs, only 19.</p> <p>Corporate lobbyists have used this plethora of meetings to brief against key elements of the promised reform [1], including:</p> <p>- bringing polymers into the scope of REACH [2]; <br>- introducing a 'mixture allocation factor' to tackle the cocktail effects of combined chemical use [3]; <br>- speeding-up the removal of harmful chemicals in consumer products via the extension of the 'generic approach to risk management' and the implementation of the 'essential use concept' [4].</p> <p>Meanwhile one of industry's key asks, the formalisation of 'regulatory management options analysis', would likely lead to slower and weaker regulation [5].</p> <p>Today’s annual pilgrimage by President von der Leyen to Antwerp to report back to <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a>, the chemicals industry, and wider big business, on how much she has delivered for them, is a symbol of the staggering corporate influence over Commission policy-making. With industry demands ringing in her ears, von der Leyen will then hotfoot it to the Belgian countryside, to the informal European Council summit, being held tomorrow (12 February) which will discuss ideas by Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Meloni to further roll back EU social and environmental rules. [6]</p> <p>Vicky Cann, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, says:</p> <p><em>“The European Commission is getting its priorities wrong. The chemicals pollution, biodiversity, and climate crises are doing untold damage to people and environments around Europe and beyond. Just last month the Commission’s </em><a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-study-confirms-huge-and-growing-costs-pfas-pollution-2026-01-29_en"><em>own research</em></a><em> showed the hundreds of billions of costs that society will incur without action to ban PFAS / forever chemicals. Yet the Commission’s leaders would rather cosy up to industry than deliver on its promises to tackle harmful chemicals. It’s time for the Commission to stand up to big polluters and deliver the strong REACH reform that it promised in 2020.”</em></p> <p>Considering the chemicals industry's significant financial conflicts of interest, which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of protecting health and the environment, Corporate Europe Observatory believes that it is long overdue for decision-makers to avoid lobby interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals. </p> <p>The article and its data analysis is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">here</a>.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Vicky Cann, <a href="#" data-mail-to="ivpxl/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +44 7960 988096</p> <p><strong>Notes for editors</strong></p> <p>[1] The European Commission’s October 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards a toxic-free environment</a>, published as part of the European Green Deal, included the central promise that the REACH regulation would be revised. It was <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">linked</a> to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and it promised to modernise REACH’s processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals.</p> <p>[2] Polymers should be brought into scope of REACH. There is currently no obligation on industry to report the safety data of polymers to authorities. Once polymers are registered, the most problematic ones could then be identified and further regulatory action could follow.</p> <p>[3] A Mixture Allocation Factor would assess the safety of combinations of chemical substances. When different chemicals are used together, even in minute concentrations, combined exposures can present a higher risk than exposure to the individual substances.</p> <p>[4] An extension of the Generic Approach to Risk Management would encourage use of this fast-track mechanism to get harmful substances out of consumer products. An extension would cover a broader set of harmful chemicals, and both consumer products and professional uses. The ‘Essential use concept’ could reinforce this by only allowing exceptions for uses of harmful chemicals which are necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society; and if there are no acceptable alternatives from the standpoint of environment and health.</p> <p>[5] Problematically, the formalisation of Regulatory Management Options Analysis would produce an additional upfront filter for EU regulatory action, likely disempower member states proposing substance restrictions, while increasing industry’s scope to influence decision-making.</p> <p>[6] Read the civil society statement in advance of these meetings <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">here</a>. </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>REACHing out</h1> <p>Vicky Cann — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 23:01:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Industry’s 2025 lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Reform of the EU’s chemicals safety rules (REACH) has been on the European Commission’s agenda since 2020. But an intensive industry backlash, including throughout 2025 as exposed by this report, has drowned out the health and environmental urgencies to get tough on harmful chemicals. Industry’s spin and privileged access to the highest levels of the Commission, alongside the current EU hostility to new green rules and mania for deregulation, appear to have fatally undermined a key European Green Deal ambition.</p> <p><em>UPDATE: On 19 February 2026, 35 civil society organisations published a </em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/20260219_Statement%20on%20REACH%20revision.pdf"><em>common call</em></a><em> for "Protection first" which demanded that the EU delivers safe chemicals with a high protection of people’s health and the environment. Meanwhile our colleagues at Générations Futures have produced an </em><a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/actualites/reglementation-protection-fev26/"><em>article</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/actualites/reglementation-protection-fev26/fr-ceo-reachingout/"><em>French translation</em></a><em> of this report. </em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>There can be no better symbol of the corporate influence of the chemicals industry than the industry summit being held in Antwerp today (11 February) when Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to report back on how much she has delivered for big business. With industry demands ringing in her ears she will then hotfoot it to the Belgian countryside where the informal European Council summit on 12 February will discuss ideas from the German and Italian governments to further roll back EU social and environmental rules.</p> <p>Below, in part one, we look at REACH, its implementation, and the Commission’s proposal for an ambitious revision of those rules. In part two, we explore the corporate lobbying on REACH during 2025, including on specific elements of a progressive REACH reform, and how industry has lobbied hard against them. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>1. How did we get here?</strong></h3> <h3><strong>2006 onwards: EU’s flagship chemicals policy works well for industry</strong></h3> <p>The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (<a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>) is an EU law which aimed to improve the protection of human health and the environment via better and earlier identification of harmful chemicals, with a view to phasing out or restricting them. The introduction of this law was a historic milestone, and it remains the EU’s flagship chemicals policy. It was introduced in 2006 after a <a href="https://www.alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/documents/bursting-the-brussels-bubble.pdf">mammoth</a> lobby battle. At the time the chemicals industry threatened that if REACH went ahead, the inevitable consequence would be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/15/environment.conservation">deindustrialisation</a>. But of course this did not happen.</p> <p>Eurostat <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Chemicals_production_and_consumption_statistics#Total_production_of_chemicals">reports</a> that while there has been an overall decline in EU chemicals production over the past two decades, this is partly because of “a notable downward trend” in the production of chemicals which are hazardous to health, alongside a “significant rise in the production of non-hazardous chemicals.” As Eurostat <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Chemicals_production_and_consumption_statistics#Total_production_of_chemicals">notes</a>: “The decline in hazardous chemical production may be attributed to regulatory measures aimed at replacing these substances with safer alternatives.” Other reasons for the falling levels of EU chemicals production have nothing to do with REACH. These include higher fossil energy prices compared to the US and other parts of the world (a long-term <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/OXFORD_ECONOMICS_competitiveness_chemind_2014.pdf">trend</a>), a falling global share of spending on <a href="https://cefic.org/facts-and-figures-of-the-european-chemical-industry/capital-ri-spending/">research and innovation</a>, and <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/10/EU27-Chemical-Monthly-Report-September-2024.pdf">“insufficient demand”</a>. </p> <p>Meanwhile, however, the EU’s chemicals trade surplus has actually increased. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Trade_and_production_of_chemicals_and_related_products">According</a> to Eurostat, “the EU had a growing trade surplus in chemicals and related products throughout the 2014–2024 period. The surplus grew from €119 billion in 2014 to €238 billion in 2024, equivalent to an average annual growth of 5.7%.” In 2024 alone chemicals exports increased by 7 per cent. This provides some indication that a shift to more sustainable chemical production can actually help boost EU exports. </p> <blockquote><p>A shift to more sustainable chemical production can actually help boost EU exports</p> </blockquote> <p>Twenty years on from the introduction of REACH, the chemicals industry has learned to accommodate its requirements ‒ and to exploit its weaknesses. Despite the benefits that REACH has undoubtedly brought by switching some production away from hazardous chemicals, it has not operated as quickly or efficiently to regulate all such substances as was expected.</p> <p>According to the <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Need-for-speed-final.pdf">European Environmental Bureau</a>, under REACH, it takes 19 years and three months to restrict the use of dangerous chemicals. Phasing out under the ‘authorisation’ process takes 22 years and 11 months, while harmonising classification and labelling takes 19 years and five months from start to finish. Yet under the same law, industry can market new chemicals only three weeks after submitting data to the EU Chemicals Agency (ECHA), even if that data is incomplete or the substance is unsafe. </p> <p>No wonder then that <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/verband-der-chemischen-industrie-ev?rid=15423437054-40">Verband der Chemischen Industrie</a><strong> </strong>(VCI, the German chemicals industry lobby) apparently told Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall in a meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/kFqF5g7SEW4sjRz">8 April 2025</a>, “in general the REACH regulation works well for the industry.”</p> <p>But it is clear that REACH does not provide the effective protection against harmful chemicals that EU citizens need.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2020: Commission promises ambitious REACH reform towards zero chemical pollution</strong></h3> <p>The European Environment Agency <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/chemicals">says</a> that “according to some estimates, about 8% of deaths can be attributed to hazardous chemicals. These numbers could be underestimated, given that we are only aware of the health effects of a small portion of chemicals in use today.”</p> <p>Considering the <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html">ongoing chemical pollution</a> crisis in Europe and beyond, and the flaws in REACH outlined above, civil society welcomed the Commission’s October 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards a toxic-free environment</a> (CSS), published as part of the European Green Deal. The strategy included the central promise that the REACH regulation would be revised. The CSS was <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">linked</a> to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and expectations were high that a revision of REACH would modernise its processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals.</p> <blockquote><p>Expectations were high that a revision of REACH would modernise its processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals</p> </blockquote> <p>But five years later, the promised REACH revision has not materialised. Behind the scenes, a lot of work has been done by Commission officials to prepare the revision. A <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">public consultation</a> was held in early 2022, and in the autumn of the same year an impact assessment on the proposal was sent to the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en">Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a> (RSB) for its opinion. This is an obligatory part of the EU’s law-making process. Yet, despite Corporate Europe Observatory’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/03/reach-regulation-eu-commissions-failure-share-full-documents-constitutes-double">1000-day battle</a> to access these documents, including the unredacted impact assessment and RSB opinion, the Commission has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/why-eu-operating-politics-secrecy-chemical-safety">refused</a> to make the full documents available. The EU Ombudsman <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64113">found</a> this Commission approach to have been “maladministration”; it also breached EU <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=aarhus&docid=205322&pageIndex=0&doclang=en">case law</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>Yet, despite Corporate Europe Observatory’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/03/reach-regulation-eu-commissions-failure-share-full-documents-constitutes-double">1000-day battle</a> to access these documents, including the unredacted impact assessment and RSB opinion, the Commission has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/why-eu-operating-politics-secrecy-chemical-safety">refused</a> to make the full documents available.</p> </blockquote> <p>By the time of the European Parliament elections in June 2024, it was clear the REACH revision had been put on ice by the Commission. Media reports indicated that the two directorate-generals leading the revision and their <a href="https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/050423/produits-chimiques-thierry-breton-tente-de-torpiller-le-nouveau-reglement-europeen">respective commissioners</a> ‒ DG Grow (Industry) and DG Environment ‒ could not <a href="https://www.endseurope.com/article/1845418/in-depth-why-major-changes-chemical-regulations-pipeline-despite-shelving-reach-revisions">agree</a> on the scale of ambition for the reform.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2025: REACH reform derailed by corporate interests and deregulation mania</strong></h3> <p>DG Grow has traditionally supported industry’s view on EU regulation, and the chemicals sector has long <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">enjoyed</a> DG Grow’s support. Industry was never more than <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Cefic-Position-Paper-on-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability.pdf">lukewarm</a> about the idea of re-opening REACH. After all why would it support such reform, when chemical companies have learnt to exploit existing loopholes, and the process to get toxic chemicals off the market conveniently happens at snail’s pace? But the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the corresponding rise in energy prices which hit this fossil-fuel dependent industry’s profits hard, gave the <a href="https://www.vci.de/vci/downloads-vci/publikation/politikbrief/pb-2023-04-deindustrialisierung-stoppen.pdf">chemicals industry</a> and its allies ammunition to ratchet up their opposition to the REACH revision. Something similar happened with the Green Deal’s <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf">Farm to Fork strategy</a>: its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">proposal</a> to reduce pesticide use by 50 per cent was eventually withdrawn by the Commission after a corporate and right-wing backlash. </p> <p>Once the second von der Leyen Commission had taken office in December 2024, the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:149fe240-e92c-11ef-b5e9-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF">reconfirmed</a> its commitment to revise REACH, but it was clear that the remit and ambition had substantially changed. Today the European Green Deal is hardly mentioned by Commission leaders, and its previous political priorities have morphed into pro-industry rhetoric and policy, with goals to boost <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">competitiveness</a> and tackle the so-called burden of green and social rules on corporations. The REACH revision is caught up in the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">deregulation mania</a> gripping Brussels, driven forward by the Commission’s Secretariat-General and the deregulation commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis. There is a genuine risk that the reform of REACH could now lead to weaker rules, rather than the long-promised strengthening.</p> <blockquote><p>Today the European Green Deal is hardly mentioned by Commission leaders, and its previous political priorities have morphed into pro-industry rhetoric and policy</p> </blockquote> <p>In September 2025 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) reassessed a second, updated impact assessment for the REACH revision. Unlike its first positive opinion (available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/RSB%20opinion%20REACH%20Redacted.pdf">here</a>, although heavily redacted), this time around the Board gave a negative opinion on the second impact assessment, throwing a further spanner in the works. <em>Contexte</em> <a href="https://www.contexte.com/fr/article/environnement/competitivite-et-simplification-les-principaux-griefs-a-lorigine-du-recalage-de-la-revision-de-reach_242426?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">reported</a> that the negative opinion (which is not in the public domain) was because the impact assessment was incoherent with the proposed measures, and not sufficiently aligned with the Commission’s new political priorities of competitiveness and simplification. This confirmed civil society’s concerns that the REACH revision proposal is now undergoing a substantial shift, towards delivering the interests of industry. Ultimately the dossier will need to receive a positive RSB opinion on a third version of the impact assessment if commissioners want to move forward with legislative reform of REACH. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2026: How will REACH fare under unprecedented green backlash? </strong></h3> <p>Today the chemicals industry and its allies feel greatly emboldened. The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">Antwerp Declaration</a> agenda, which was initiated by the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">European Chemical Industry Council</a> (CEFIC, the highest-spending lobby group in Brussels, and the chemical industry’s chief cheerleader) has been adopted <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">wholesale</a> by the Commission. It has also introduced an industry-friendly <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/good-day-chemical-polluters-bad-day-people-and-environment">Chemicals Industry Action Plan</a>, while the deregulation agenda continues apace, including via the <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">Chemicals Omnibus</a> ‒ which proposes to <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/letter-on-the-chemicals-omnibus/">reduce protections</a> against harmful chemicals. Industry is shifting its position and surely dusting off old wish-lists of policy demands, now that it can see how pliant the Commission has become.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Von der Leyen’s annual pilgrimage to the chemicals industry</strong></h3> <p>On 11 February, for the third year running, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to address EU industry leaders in Antwerp, in an event <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-changes-president-on-1-january-2026/">coordinated</a> by the chemicals industry. In 2024 a CEFIC-organised <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf-win-chemicals-lobby-antwerp-eu-meeting">event</a> launched the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">Antwerp Declaration</a>. In 2025 the backdrop to von der Leyen’s speech in Antwerp was the launch of the Commission’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/06/faqs-part-iii-chemicals">Clean Industrial Deal</a> (which is neither clean nor green). At that time von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_628">told</a> the assembled corporate interests that: “The Clean Industrial Deal, if you look at it, delivers on each and every one of the ten recommendations in the Antwerp Declaration … And next year I would love to come back, to report on what we have done in between,<strong> </strong>to listen to how your reality was in between.” A year later von der Leyen’s wishes will now come true and she is due to address the EU Industry Summit at the Antwerp Stock Exchange.</p> <p>The next day von der Leyen will attend an EU leaders’ retreat at Alden Biesen castle in rural Belgium, which will discuss radical proposals to accelerate the deregulation of EU- and national-level legislation, all in the name of <a href="https://premier.be/en/davos">“competitiveness”</a>. This informal European Council summit will address the deregulation demands <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/ger-ita-non-paper-competitiveness_en_finale.pdf">proposed</a> by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month. Virtually all of the proposals are longstanding demands of industry lobbyists, promoted by <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/businesseurope?rid=3978240953-79">BusinessEurope</a>, the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-round-table-of-industrialists?rid=25487567824-45">European Round Table for Industry</a>, and others. For more information see Deregulation Watch <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">update</a> of 29 January 2026.</p> <p>Read the civil society statement in advance of these meetings <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">here</a>. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>So it is not just the Commission which has become more industry-friendly. Among a number of EU member states the far-right is in power or growing in popularity, and as evidenced by the event in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Alden Biesen</a> on 12 February, the deregulation agenda is growing at national levels too. Furthermore, since the 2024 elections the European Parliament has also seen the <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-european-parliaments-far-right-alliance-adopts-position-on-omnibus-i-corporate-capture-on-full-display-written-for-the-few-not-for-people-or-planet/">growing reality</a> of an alliance between the right and the extreme right, likely to manifest itself in opposition to green policies.</p> <p>And of course across the Atlantic, the Trump administration is putting further <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/trumps-trade-war-against-protective-rules">pressure</a> on EU regulations, rebranded “non-tariff trade barriers”. Following a <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/topics/trade/eu-us-trade-deal_en">EU-US trade agreement</a> in July 2025, CEFIC and its US counterpart, the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-chemistry-council/summary?id=D000000365">American Chemistry Council</a> said, in a <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-and-american-chemistry-council-joint-statement-on-us-eu-trade-deal/">joint statement</a>: “We encourage both sides to work with our industry to incorporate a binding sectoral agreement on chemical products as a major deliverable of these discussions.” This would likely pile additional deregulatory pressure on existing chemicals regulations such as REACH as, according to the lobbyists, “this agreement should also enhance regulatory cooperation and simplification”.</p> <p>Late last year <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> announced that it no longer supports ‒ even on paper ‒ the idea of opening up REACH. In April 2022 CEFIC had appeared more supportive, <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-statement-on-the-revision-of-reach/">pronouncing</a> that “the REACH revision is an opportunity to continue reducing exposure to the most harmful substances and continue building a predictable regulatory system that enables industry and authorities to focus resources where it matters the most…”. However, since then its approach has been to “<a href="https://euobserver.com/green-economy/areb7fa547">delay and weaken</a>” the revision. By December 2025 CEFIC was openly <a href="https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/a-breaking-point-for-europes-chemical-industry/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication">advertising</a> in <em>Politico</em> its “call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text.”</p> <p>Instead CEFIC now says that the changes it wants could be implemented without revising the primary REACH legislation, instead being dealt with by amendments at the secondary level (also known as <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementing-and-delegated-acts/comitology_en">comitology</a> in Brussels-speak). In late January 2026 <em>Politico</em> <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=vicky@corporateeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Fwww.politico.eu%2Fpro%2Fa-slimline-reach-revision%2F/1/0102019be9724523-5e414c79-ce0c-42c4-bb36-30c733e0a977-000000/xqFDn2R1AzlaJ8Zb8VydPDIc66c=462">reported</a> that Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall is talking to political parties in the European Parliament about how to proceed with the reform and “testing the possibility of only doing comitology (changing annexes) as requested by CEFIC”. It is a remarkable indication of corporate lobby power that CEFIC’s proposal is now under active discussion at the highest political levels. </p> <blockquote><p>Whether REACH is fully re-opened and revised, or amended via comitology, the original public interest ambition of the CSS seems severely at risk</p> </blockquote> <p>The reform of REACH was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle the scourge of harmful chemicals and their impacts on our health and communities. But now the whole project seems stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whether REACH is fully re-opened and revised, or amended via comitology, the original public interest ambition of the CSS seems severely at risk.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2. Exposing the 2025 REACH lobby battle</strong></h3> <h3><strong>Industry’s intensive lobby access to corporate-friendly Commission</strong></h3> <p>New <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">analysis</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory shows that, during 2025, industry lobbied the Commission intensively on the REACH revision and its specific components. Of the high-level Commission meetings<span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content">This article has specifically looked at the lobby meetings held by Commissioners and their cabinets during 2025. Also see our methodology at the end of this article.</span></span> held in 2025, industry enjoyed 93 sessions which included a focus on REACH, while NGOs were only granted 19 meetings. </p> <p>Industry also had additional access to the Commission on chemicals matters. Corporate interests managed a further 100 high-level meetings on chemicals policy beyond REACH in 2025: 64 with the chemicals industry, and 36 with the non-chemicals industry. These further meetings covered a variety of issues including PFAS/ forever chemicals, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and the Chemicals Omnibus.</p> <p>It is perhaps no surprise that of the 93 high-level industry meetings which discussed REACH, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> had the most with 6, alongside trade association <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe</a>, and French cosmetic company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/lor%C3%A9al?rid=02776221598-67">L’Oréal</a>, both also with 6. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/american-chamber-of-commerce-to-the-european-union?rid=5265780509-97">AmCham EU</a> (representing US companies in Brussels) and the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical Risk</a> (ASMoR, a trade association) had 4 meetings each. German chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/basf-se?rid=7410939793-88">BASF</a> also had 4 meetings, while US-headquartered chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/dow-europe?rid=38235121060-73">Dow</a>, German manufacturer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/henkel-ag--co-kgaa?rid=13635802880-80">Henkel</a>, and French chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/arkema?rid=35321797057-83">Arkema</a> all had 3 meetings. The full analysis is available <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">here</a>. While <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/businesseurope?rid=3978240953-79">BusinessEurope</a> (one of Brussels’ biggest lobbyists) did not join any high-level lobby meetings on REACH in 2025, its <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-17-REACH-regulation-paper_BusinessEurope.pdf">position statement</a> largely reflects CEFIC’s approach. BASF and Henkel are among BusinessEurope’s <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/about-us/asgroup-our-partner-companies/">“partner companies”</a>.</p> <p>The dominance of industry lobbyists on chemicals policy was further reinforced in several high-level, strategic ‘dialogue’ meetings the Commission organised in 2025, the first in <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_872">March</a> with Vice-President for industry Stéphane Séjourné and Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, and the second in <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/read_25_1198">May</a> with President Ursula von der Leyen. The <a href="https://eeb.org/en_gb/eu-strategic-dialogue-on-chemicals-a-high-level-discussion-highlights-urgent-need-for-transformation-not-deregulation/">latter</a> saw 14 industry representatives <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1197">present</a>, while only two civil society groups and two trade union organisations were invited. The <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/196018">former</a> also saw industry outnumber NGOs.</p> <p>What was discussed in industry’s 93 private lobby meetings on REACH? How did industry use these meetings to undermine progressive REACH reform? Below we examine five of the most hotly-contested REACH revision issues, and expose how industry spent 2025 hammering what could be the final nails in the coffin of a revision aimed at tackling harmful chemicals. In addition to the publicly-available minutes of these meetings, we have also analysed written submissions to the April 2025 discussion on the Commission’s REACH proposals held by the its key expert group which advises on the implementation of chemicals rules, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2385">CARACAL</a> (<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=67750&fromExpertGroups=2385">meeting 54</a>). CARACAL stands for Competent Authorities for REACH and Classification, Labelling and Packaging, and it is attended by member states, industry, and civil society groups. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>A chink of light: is all industry opposed to a progressive REACH revision?</strong></h3> <p>Our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/5tN3Y2CG7C4GiKq">analysis</a> identified a small handful of industry meetings, perhaps 5 out of 93, which appeared to support a more progressive REACH revision. On wider chemicals policy, a particularly noteworthy meeting was a visit to a chemicals start-up in Germany on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/AznXgMgZAH8fjtW">26 May</a> by Vice-President Séjourné. According to the minute of the visit, he was told that this young company which supports <a href="https://www.dudechem.com/">“green chemistry”</a> wished to “support “old” production sites to make their production processes more efficient and sustainable”. The note went on to say that the company “gathered with others” to establish its own association of chemical start-ups, “as they didn’t feel fully represented and heard by existing chemical associations, that represent the big and established players”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 1: Registration of safety data on polymers - industry cries wolf </strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would bring polymers into the scope of REACH. </strong>There is currently no obligation on industry to report the safety data of polymers to authorities, but as they are <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">“the fundamental building blocks of plastics”</a>, the CSS proposed to extend the duty to register to polymers. Once polymers are registered, the most problematic ones can then be identified and further regulatory action could follow. This would require a legislative re-opening of REACH as the current text specifically exempts them.</p> <p>The adviser to the Greens’ political group in the European Parliament, Axel Singhofen, argued forcefully (at a <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">Chemical Watch conference</a> in October 2025) for the inclusion of polymers in REACH because, as he says, they are “just as pervasive as PFAS. Polymers are used everywhere – in cosmetics, water treatment, food and so on, just as PFAS. Closing our eyes to polymers is like closing our eyes to PFAS [ ... ] and I’m ready to predict that polymers are going to be the new PFAS.” Background information on polymer registration is available <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FAQ_PolymerRegistrationFeb2025.pdf">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying intensively to oppose the inclusion of polymers in REACH.</strong> During 2025 CEFIC raised its concerns in meetings with the Commission on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LE9zQjReNeSa9o9">19 March</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">25 April</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/r32qkZFG6ydKFEy">28 August</a>, and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Q6RSzAoxjjeRPBZ">11 September</a>. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/basf-se?rid=7410939793-88">BASF</a>, the largest chemical company in the world, which is based in Germany, provides CEFIC’s <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-changes-president-on-1-january-2026/">current president</a>, and often <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">mirrors</a> CEFIC’s lobby positions, has also been very active in raising polymers with decision-makers, including via meetings on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/BXMBdAZKQnjJo6x">23 April</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Tj8mZazqie6Q3PW">24 April</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/JxYr4rTQdzAfP2c">15 May</a>. Other chemical companies have also lobbied on polymers, including <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/dow-europe?rid=38235121060-73">Dow</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/YmBkmiGJBQcyXzo">19 March</a> and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/arkema?rid=35321797057-83">Arkema</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/WzqL3gAJDM26Y5X">20 May</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin to oppose bringing polymers into the scope of REACH?</strong> <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> commissioned a <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2025/10/Fact-sheet-Registering-Low-Molecular-Weight-Polymers-Costs-Impacts-and-Policy-Implications-under-REACH.pdf">report</a> from consultancy firm Ricardo, which concluded that the costs of polymer registration under REACH would be €30-€50 billion. Yet a previous Commission <a href="https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1cc811ff-d5fc-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1">study</a> had estimated far lower costs of €2.5 billion (with resulting health and environmental benefits of around €30 billion over 40 years). The <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">difference</a> between the Commission and industry estimates relates to the numbers of polymers tested. The Commission study concluded that 33,000 substances would need to be registered, but only 11,000 of these would need to be tested. By contrast the Ricardo report groups the 146,000 known polymers into 56,000 groups requiring registration, and then assumes that 3 polymers per group need to be tested. This results in a total of 168,000 polymers to be tested; in other words, the ‘grouping’ approach by Ricardo increased the testing requirement, rather than reducing it. Corporate Europe Observatory has previously reported on this recognised lobby tactic to <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">“cry wolf”</a> by throwing eye-catchingly high cost figures into a debate in order to provoke decision-makers’ doubts about a particular policy proposal. CEFIC’s study has certainly given a boost to the industry lobby opposed to polymer registration. </p> <p>Greens advisor Singhofen has <a href="///C:/AppData/Local/Temp/pid-19196/%3E%20https:/product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">said</a> that industry’s higher figures imply that the sector does not “even have the most basic information about the identity of the polymers and their physical chemical properties” and would need to “start from scratch to assess them”. This is a shocking situation, considering that thousands of different polymers are already manufactured and used across the EU, including in consumer goods. </p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>,<strong> </strong><a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FAQ_PolymerRegistrationFeb2025.pdf">according</a> to the European Environmental Bureau, industry has successfully delayed the obligation to register polymers under REACH for decades. In order to even start considering whether to regulate harmful polymers, at least a subset of them would need to be registered under REACH. Yet today, as a result of an intense industry lobby, it is decidedly unclear whether this will be part of the Commission’s proposal to revise REACH.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 2: Introduction of Mixture Allocation Factor to tackle the cocktail effect</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would introduce a Mixture Allocation Factor (MAF) to assess the safety of combinations of chemical substances, as proposed in the </strong><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF"><strong>CSS</strong></a><strong>.</strong> This factor is vital because when different chemicals are used together, even in minute concentrations, combined exposures can present a higher risk than exposure to the individual substances. This is called the cocktail effect. Introducing a MAF (which could be done via comitology or a legislative proposal) would help identify potential risks that might otherwise be overlooked. This could simplify the risk evaluation process, ultimately helping to reduce the negative health and environmental impacts associated with exposure to harmful chemicals. More information on the rationale for MAF is available <a href="https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Mixture-assessment-factor-expert-presentation.pdf?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying intensively to oppose the introduction of a MAF.</strong> <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> has <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2025/02/Cefics-10-Point-Action-to-Simplify-REACH.pdf">argued</a> that it would “impose significant administrative burdens without effectively addressing combined exposures”. It raised MAF in a Commission meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">25 April</a>. Downstream users of chemicals have also lobbied on this issue, for example the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink and Artists' Colours Industry</a> (CEPE) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Ws4BMDcHJqQ5wRg">21 March</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Z8nAcDLwSgzoXWs">5 May</a>, when it argued that “introducing a ‘mixture allocation factor’ would have huge impacts on the sector”, and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/8JfbmFMrCjm5WH8?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true">30 September</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the inclusion of MAF?</strong> Industry has claimed that MAF is <a href="https://atiel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/UTF-8ATIEL-REACH-revision_comments-for-CARCACAL-April-2025.pdf">“not based on science”</a> and <a href="https://www.feica.eu/our-projects/reach">“non-scientific”</a>. However, in early Summer 2025 leading scientists and over 200 European researchers in environmental science, chemistry, toxicology, and public health, signed a <a href="https://www.su.se/english/divisions/department-of-environmental-science/news/articles/2025-06-25-european-researchers-unite-behind-call-for-stronger-chemical-mixture-regulation-in-reach">letter</a> to Commission leaders calling for the introduction of MAF, “to better protect people and ecosystems from cumulative chemical exposures.” They argued the letter “underscores the urgency and scientific consensus around this issue.” </p> <p>Meanwhile <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> commissioned a <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Ricardo-Energy-and-Environment-Economic-Analysis-of-the-Impacts-of-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability-Case-Study-Mixture-Assessment-Factor.pdf">case study</a> on the hypothetical impacts of MAF if it were implemented. Again the study was delivered by the same consultancy company Ricardo, and again it found millions and even billions of euros of potential losses per substance, depending on different scenarios. However, the final lines on page 41 of the <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Ricardo-Energy-and-Environment-Economic-Analysis-of-the-Impacts-of-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability-Case-Study-Mixture-Assessment-Factor.pdf">report</a> notably say: “By design, these conclusions do not provide any insights into the balance of economic, environmental and social impacts, nor the social costs and benefits of the proposed interventions.” This indicates that the full cost-benefit analysis on MAF might look rather different if the positive impacts on health and environment were included. This is another <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">common industry tactic</a>, to only assess and emphasise industry costs, rather than also factoring in the wider societal benefits of a proposed policy. </p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, as far back as 2012 the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0252">identified</a> that “current EU legislation does not provide for a comprehensive and integrated assessment of cumulative effects of different chemicals taking into account different routes of exposure.” This has not changed and it is long overdue for REACH to remedy this absence. But will the Commission finally tackle the cocktail effect, or will it bow to the loud voices of industry lobbyists who prefer business as usual?</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 3: Extension of Generic Approach to Risk Management, to remove toxic chemicals from consumer goods</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would rapidly extend the Generic Approach to Risk Management (also known as GRA or GARM).</strong> The GRA approach, set out in the original REACH, is a fast-track mechanism to get harmful substances out of consumer products. It’s long <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4bea0b27-8e98-48c5-9224-fb9b8f2e99c1_en?filename=Restrictions%20Roadmap_amendment_2025.pdf">overdue</a> for GRA to be used to remove chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic (causing genetic damage), or toxic for reproduction (reprotoxic) from childcare articles. It is shocking to think that toxic chemicals are used in items such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a>, and a good example of why we need to urgently scale up the removal of such substances from all consumer goods. An extension would broaden GRA to include other types of harmful chemicals. The 2020 CSS also <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF">indicated</a> that GRA should also be extended to cover not only consumer products but also professional uses. This would require a legislative proposal.</p> <p>However by 2022 it was clear that the Commission was already weakening its ambition on GRA. The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/07/out-reach">heavily-redacted</a> first version of the REACH revision impact assessment revealed that the Commission’s approach had already been substantially diluted. It was considering a range of scenarios which would only cover 1 per cent, 10 per cent, or 50 per cent of consumer products containing the most harmful chemicals, representing a <a href="https://eeb.org/european-citizens-alarmingly-high-chemical-exposure/">“drastic scale back”</a> from the original promise. This is notwithstanding that information from the redacted part of the impact assessment, privately seen by the European Environmental Bureau, <a href="https://eeb.org/en/european-citizens-alarmingly-high-chemical-exposure/">showed</a> that even with these weak plans, the direct costs to the chemical industry of banning the most harmful chemicals from consumer and professional products would be offset 10 times over by human health benefits. More information on the GRA is available <a href="https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Fast-track-restriction-for-the-most-harmful-chemicals-expert-presentation.pdf?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has lobbied to oppose the extension of GRA.</strong> On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LE9zQjReNeSa9o9">19 March</a> last year, according to the published notes of the lobby meeting, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> “cautioned against extension of application of general risk assessment” to a member of Roswall’s Cabinet, and repeated almost identical messaging to the same official just a <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">month later</a>. Other industry voices opposing the extension have been many and varied. On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Fk4cs5TpSaxnfEH">22 May</a> “no GRA extension” was part of a much longer list of REACH demands presented by the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/downstream-users-of-chemicals-co-ordination-group?rid=70941697936-72">Downstream Users of Chemicals Co-ordination Group</a> (DUCC, which represents cosmetics, detergents, aerosols, and paint etc industries) to Commissioner Roswall.</p> <p>The cosmetics industry has been one of the most prominent opponents of the extension of GRA, as seen in <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe’s</a> meetings with Roswall’s Cabinet on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/CwH9qckPXb4gNkm">24 March</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/8JfbmFMrCjm5WH8">30 September</a>. One of its most active members, French cosmetics company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/lor%C3%A9al?rid=02776221598-67">L’Oréal</a>, told Vice-President Séjourné that it was concerned about GRA on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/pnpiqYDA9ykYXLX">16 May</a>. Others voicing concern have included <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical R</a>isk (ASMoR) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/FcWHeafjEKrxxBr">15 April</a> and the European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink, and Artist’s Colours Industry (<a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">CEPE</a>) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Z8nAcDLwSgzoXWs">5 May</a>. Meanwhile German manufacturer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/henkel-ag--co-kgaa?rid=13635802880-80">Henkel</a> told Séjourné’s Cabinet on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/emZGFqBbDqdGr99">16 April</a> that “elements like Mixture Allocation Factor, the generic risk assessment and polymers’ registration would limit product performance, undermine competitiveness, and divert proactive R&D to defensive R&D.”</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the extension of GRA?</strong> In April 2025, as part of the written consultation on the Commission’s updated REACH reform proposal presented at the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=67750&fromExpertGroups=2385">54<sup>th</sup> CARACAL</a> meeting, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">CEPE</a> apparently <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/B5Gdqpx484Kz6GJ">told</a> the Commission that “as long as the GRA is a blanket ban and does not include any formal process to take into account socio-economic impacts, risk or alternative considerations, unexpected and disproportional impacts cannot be ruled out.” But this was inaccurate ‒ GRA is not a blanket ban, and it does allow for exemptions. Similarly the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-apparel-and-textile-confederation?rid=7824139202-85">European Apparel and Textile Confederation</a> (Euratex) <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/fPpMkNWicJC3sWG">wrote</a>: “the PFAS example is the perfect illustration that the GRA-based ban does not adequately allow for exemptions particularly in professional uses or technical applications”. But again this was misleading ‒ the <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas">universal PFAS restriction</a> is not “GRA-based” and it does allow for exemptions. The <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-plastics-converters-association?rid=93255296152-29">European Plastic Converters Association</a> (EUPC) <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/7Dw4y7eX7EKQpwy">told</a> CARACAL that “the PFAs [sic] mega dossier has shown that such an approach actually does not result in more efficient regulation, a meaningful use of Authority limited resource and eventually a timely action for the protection of human health or the environment.” This is another misrepresentation of the proposed universal PFAS restriction which is moving comparatively quickly (despite a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">coordinated deluge</a> of industry submissions against it), and aims to regulate a group of up to 10,000 different forever chemicals together, rather than one by one which would be impossibly slow.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, extending GRA would be an effective way of scaling up the removal of the most harmful chemicals from the products that we use on a day to day basis, to reduce public exposure. But today, industry voices once again appear to dominate this debate. Even if the Commission ultimately opts to revise REACH by legislative proposal, it is not at all clear that this will include any extension of GRA.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 4: Implementation of Essential Use Concept to remove unnecessary harmful chemicals </strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would implement the Essential Use Concept (EUC), to run alongside the extension of GRA (discussed above) which would help to get harmful chemicals out of consumer goods.</strong> The EUC would mean that harmful chemicals are only allowed if, firstly, their use is necessary for health, safety, or is critical for the functioning of society, and, secondly, if there are no acceptable alternatives from the standpoint of environment and health. The EUC and GRA are sometimes described as ‘hazard-based’ approaches to chemicals regulation, because they give weight to the intrinsic hazardous properties of a substance. The EUC is also associated with the ‘precautionary principle’ and applying the EUC would make it much easier for regulators to ban non-essential uses of chemicals in everyday products. In April 2024 the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202402894">published</a> its “guiding principles and criteria” on the EUC, but the concept of essential use is yet to be embedded in legislation such as REACH, nor put into practice.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying hard to oppose the implementation of the EUC</strong> and, as <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/01/how-essential-are-hazardous-substances">reported</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory in January 2024, has been promoting its alternative concept of ‘safe use’, alongside the idea that there are whole products and sectors which are “<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/6.Key%20Points%20Meeting%20with%20Cosmetics%20Europe%20Delegation%2013.10.2022.pdf">essential</a>”. At the heart of the ‘safe use’ lobby is <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">ASMoR</a> (the Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical Risk) a body whose 34 <a href="https://wordpress-1471990-5566126.cloudwaysapps.com/members/">members</a> include the bromine, nickel, fuels, ceramic, fragrance, and automobile industries. The alliance was set up to <a href="https://asmor.eu/">campaign</a> on its “common goal to ensure that safe uses of hazardous substances remain permitted”. ‘Safe use’ is sometimes described as a ‘risk-based’ approach, since it is based on the assumption that regardless of the hazard of a chemical, the focus should be on exposure to it.</p> <p>ASMoR has pushed back against essential use and promoted ‘safe use’ instead, including at meetings on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ooETTJxE3sMj93q">24 February</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/FcWHeafjEKrxxBr">15 April</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/HHWbPS99gejpBmR">8 May</a>. On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/gTeAEcsCPxZ4qkA">10 April</a> US chemicals company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/emerson-electric-co?rid=499582651306-69">Emerson</a> argued for a “risk-based approach and explained that in their view the notion of essential use had shortcomings”, comments echoed by paint producer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/ppg-industries-inc?rid=064309946772-86">PPG Industries</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3G6rML388YAmEgp">7 May</a>. Interestingly <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> does not appear to have prioritised opposing the EUC in the past year, even though in a November 2022 lobby meeting the EUC was <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/34_Ares%282023%29855072%205210%20CAB_Notes%2Bfrom%2Bmeeting%2BSinkevicius%2Band%2BCEFIC%2B2022.11.18_Redacted.pdf">listed</a> as one of its five main concerns about the REACH revision.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the implementation of essential use?</strong> According to industry logic, existing hazardous substances should continue to be used in everyday consumer goods so long as they can be shown to be ‘safe’. But this is a very misleading argument. ‘Safe use’ is pretty much the system we have today, which is clearly not sufficiently protective. Currently we can find harmful chemicals in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a> and other childcare articles, ‘forever chemicals’ / PFAS in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y">dental floss</a>, and known carcinogens in <a href="https://chemsec.org/reports/lost-at-sea/">lipstick lids</a>, to give just a few examples. ‘Safe use’ would be a licence to carry-on contaminating.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, the implementation of the EUC is a necessary part of an effective REACH revision, especially when introduced alongside the GRA extension. Legislative change is necessary to ensure it is included in REACH and other chemicals legislation (for example those governing cosmetics and toys) where it would also be highly relevant. However at the time of writing, it is not clear that the Commission plans to do anything further to progress and implement the guidance it published two years ago.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>So far we have highlighted four areas where industry has been fighting back against the progressive proposals made in the CSS, which were originally to be included in an ambitious REACH revision. There are some other areas where <a href="https://cefic.org//app/uploads/2025/02/Cefics-10-Point-Action-to-Simplify-REACH.pdf">industry</a> and <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Future-Proof-EU-Chemicals-Policy-1.pdf">civil society</a> objectives broadly align, such as better enforcement of the REACH rules including for the import of chemicals, and greater digitalisation of the regulatory processes. But of course industry also has an offensive agenda, a key element of which is examined below. Worryingly one of industry’s favourite demands seems to be rapidly moving up the REACH reform agenda.</p> <p> </p> <h3><strong>Topic 5: Regulatory Management Options Analysis – industry-favoured approach to weaken and delay action</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would not include the formalisation of Regulatory Management Options Analysis (RMOA).</strong> According to a <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">position paper</a> by <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a>, RMOA is an “upfront analysis of regulatory options”, to address any identified concerns regarding a substance. In practice RMOA is already widely used by member states but it was not included in the original REACH, nor in the CSS. However, industry-friendly DG GROW advocated for RMOA to become mandatory back in 2020, which would introduce an additional upfront filter for EU regulatory action and likely reduce and/or delay action, while increasing industry’s scope to influence decision-making.</p> <p>By supporting a formalised RMOA, industry might hope to delegate decisions on chemicals to legal frameworks which are weaker than REACH. For example, in <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">CEFIC’s paper on RMOA</a> it argues that the regulation of harmful chemicals should firstly consider options via occupational safety and health legislation, and the Industrial Emissions Directive. But the options available under these laws are much weaker than those in REACH, and the latter is about emissions reduction not toxicity. According to <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">CEFIC’s proposal</a>, only if these other rules are “not considered to be sufficient to prevent unacceptable risk”, would complementary measures via a REACH restriction be imposed. </p> <p>There is also a high chance that the formalisation of RMOA could lead to the disempowerment of member states by reducing the number of restriction proposals, and by creating additional procedures to reduce the throughput of substance-specific regulation. This would be highly concerning because <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions?p_p_id=disslists_WAR_disslistsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_disslists_WAR_disslistsportlet_javax.portlet.action=searchDissLists">more than half</a> of all restrictions have been initiated by member states rather than the Commission. Besides, member states already discuss regulatory options for different substances, so no additional procedure is needed. It’s worth noting that in its response to the CSS in March 2021, the Council of Ministers <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/48827/st06941-en21.pdf">said</a> that any changes made to REACH should not weaken it, “nor lower the level of protection already accomplished, or affect the rights of Member States to initiate and influence actions” [emphasis added]. </p> <p><strong>Industry, however, has been lobbying to promote the formalisation of RMOA.</strong> Trade association <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">ASMoR</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ooETTJxE3sMj93q">24 February</a> told a member of the Roswall cabinet that it was “in favour of a formalised stepwise risk-management option analysis including an early screening of exposure and safe use.” Minutes of a meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/HHWbPS99gejpBmR">8 May</a> with ASMoR show that a member of the von der Leyen cabinet was told “instead of adopting a hazard-based approach, ASMoR suggested the implementation of the Risk Management Option Analysis (RMOA) for assessing chemicals.” The written submissions made to the April 2025 CARACAL discussion on the REACH revision proposal show that <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/J89yAgdMRPsAXJY">CEFIC</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/6b2rBsFFdsnjafE">AmCham</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/QE66jmLXdMQiRSb">A.I.S.E.</a> (detergents trade association), <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/B5Gdqpx484Kz6GJ">CEPE</a>, and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/c8JTPSZBcZHt8m9">ETRMA</a> (tyre and rubber manufacturers) were among the organisations promoting a formalised RMOA.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, at the April 2025 <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=67750&fromExpertGroups=2385">CARACAL meeting</a>, the Commission included a proposal to incorporate an upfront, formalised RMOA in the REACH revision. Industry must be feeling increasingly confident that this tool of theirs will feature in the REACH reform. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Conclusion: it’s long overdue to challenge hazardous chemicals lobbyists’ conflicts of interest</strong></h3> <p>Clarity on the Commission’s approach to REACH reform is expected imminently, although the precise form it will take, and the timetable, are not clear. Commissioner Roswall was recently <a href="https://www.endseurope.com/article/1945605/reach-revision-doubt-roswall-mulls-ways-move-forward">quoted</a> by <em>ENDS Europe</em> as saying: “we are in discussion on what we need to do and how can we do that [with] the view that we need to have a legislation that is fit for purpose but also seeing to it that we have a chemical industry … I try not to do dates, because I don't have dates… we are in discussions.”</p> <p>As the evidence presented here shows, there has been intense industry lobbying, including during 2025, using the old lobby classics of spin ‒ eye-catchingly high industry costings, ignoring health and environmental benefits, undermining science, and misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work ‒ to make the REACH reform as industry-friendly as possible. The indications are that corporate interests have been heard loud and clear by sympathetic audiences in this pro-deregulation Commission. As a result it is not at all clear how well the Commission’s 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">CSS ambition</a> to “better protect<strong> </strong>citizens and the environment” will fare in the current political context. And it’s highly disappointing that the Commission doesn’t recognise that a strong REACH which encourages EU industry to introduce safer chemicals faster would provide a real added-value competitive advantage. </p> <blockquote><p>The indications are that corporate interests have been heard loud and clear by sympathetic audiences in this pro-deregulation Commission</p> </blockquote> <p>Today the REACH reform is between a rock and a hard place. A legislative proposal could potentially introduce progressive, and long promised, policies ‒ such as speeding up the removal of harmful chemicals from consumer products (via Generic Approach to Risk Management and Essential Use) and action to tackle problematic polymers. But it could also weaken the right of member states to make proposals for restrictions (formalised Regulatory Management Options Analysis). Its journey through the turbulent Parliament and Council would be unpredictable, and could even leave REACH fundamentally weaker than before. Such an outcome would be the opposite of the original intention of the proposed reform.</p> <p>But the comitology route is also fraught with risk. It could address the ‘cocktail effect’ (via the Mixture Allocation Factor), but could also be used to deliver some of industry’s wider demands.</p> <p>Whichever route is chosen, the most important factor will be the objective of the revision, whether it is to help industry, including to sell more harmful chemicals, or to improve our collective health and the environment. Civil society is clear that it must be the latter, with the 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability remaining the guiding framework for the Commission’s actions on chemicals policy and REACH reform. Several of the Commission’s Omnibus proposals already plan to weaken REACH (<a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/defending-europe-means-defending-labour-and-environmental-law">defence omnibus</a>) or other chemicals policies (<a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">chemicals omnibus</a> on labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers) and must be opposed. There should be no deregulation of chemicals rules via omnibuses. </p> <p>Considering the privileged access and spin evidenced here, as well as the chemicals industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">long history</a> of undermining science to weaken or derail regulation, it’s overdue for decision-makers to avoid interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals, especially lobby meetings such as those analysed in this article. These lobbies have significant financial conflicts of interest which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of promoting and protecting health and the environment. The chemical industry and its allies must be challenged at every step.</p> <p><em><strong>It is not too late to have your voice heard. Take action to </strong></em><a href="https://action.wemove.eu/sign/2024-01-ban-forever-chemicals-EN"><em><strong>support</strong></em></a><em><strong> a Toxic-free Europe now, by demanding an ambitious, progressive REACH revision.</strong></em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>A note on our methodology</strong></h3> <p>This article is based on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">analysis</a> of the publicly-disclosed 2025 lobby meetings (as of 16 December 2025) of Commission President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=a2c7c963-a9ad-4c47-aa73-4bb46b06dd5d">von der Leyen</a> and her <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9fd4662a-8580-4cee-bb3f-3c2fba5c12c6">Cabinet</a>; Vice-President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=d8fba42d-8cc3-42c8-b1f1-e07d9b2ee8ea">Séjourné</a> and his <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=21deeb50-48f9-40a3-9ab0-ac66cdbb2ca2">Cabinet</a>; Environment Commissioner <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=2fabcec5-6930-4cd6-8e08-ac24ff31b8c2">Roswall</a> and her <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=eb5313ef-18a0-4c99-a216-5fe983e8eaf9">Cabinet</a>; and Deregulation Commissioner <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=e10e2599-a47f-41db-b571-9c8ed0696f93">Dombrovskis</a> and his <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=8e3988b4-1258-4448-add5-000bbe0c2848">Cabinet</a>. A meeting was considered to concern REACH if that term was mentioned in the subject matter or in the minutes, or if polymers, MAF, GRA, EUC, risk/hazard-based approaches, or RMOA were mentioned. The minutes analysed were of varied quality, and so the figures provided could be underestimates. While the Commission’s template for reporting minutes includes a section on “main points raised and positions expressed”, this is often not adequately completed. Overall we have a major concern that the extension of proactive transparency via the publication of minutes (rather than just a list of meetings held) which commenced in January 2025 is not being taken seriously by all officials. It is troubling that the important public duty to be fully transparent about contact with lobbyists has been reduced to a basic paperwork exercise which, in too many cases, sheds very little light on what actually happened in the meeting.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/revealed-industrys-lobby-blitz-undermine-chemicals-policy-reform" hreflang="en">Revealed: industry’s lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda" hreflang="en">Trade union and NGO coalition calls out corporate "shadow roadmap" dictating EU agenda</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">24.05.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/05/dissecting-antwerp-declaration" hreflang="en">Dissecting the Antwerp Declaration</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">20.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf-win-chemicals-lobby-antwerp-eu-meeting" hreflang="en">'Crying wolf' win for chemicals lobby at Antwerp EU meeting</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf" hreflang="en">Crying wolf pays off for chemicals industry</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Trade union and NGO coalition calls out corporate "shadow roadmap" dictating EU agenda</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-d1e55f35-7fff-6862-cfe9-9faaf00f7d0e" dir="ltr">A coalition of major civil society and trade union organisations has issued a joint declaration to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, stating that the EU Commission is prioritising a "shadow roadmap" of industry-led deregulation over democratic and environmental safeguards. Von der Leyen this week will meet with chemical industry lobby group CEFIC, just before an informal retreat at a Belgian castle for EU heads of state, where a new suite of "competitiveness" deregulation measures is at the top of the agenda. In a joint declaration, the coalition, which includes Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory, and Transparency International EU, denounces a "recurring pattern" of privileged access for corporate interests.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-90dbb2d3-7fff-4466-f415-ceee43c57ebf"><strong>The text of the joint declaration reads:</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Tomorrow, President von der Leyen will convene again with hundreds of corporate representatives during an event organised by CEFIC, a powerful lobby group for Europe’s chemical industry, just hours before meeting with EU heads of state. This recurring pattern of exclusive engagement raises a fundamental question: is European policy being shaped by its 450 million citizens, or by the continent’s largest industrial lobbies? The timing also gives industry a privileged opportunity to feed its demands directly into the EU heads of state summit on Competitiveness taking place the following day. The rollback threatens to intensify after this summit which will discuss a suite of deregulation proposals, most of which come straight from industry. </p> <p dir="ltr">Since 2024, the <a href="https://antwerp-declaration.eu/">Antwerp Declaration </a>has acted as a shadow roadmap for the European Union. What is framed as something that will boost the economy has increasingly become a vehicle for dismantling the EU’s democratic safeguards. We are witnessing a systematic rollback of vital climate, environmental and social protections—hard-won progress now being traded for corporate concessions behind closed doors. So far, the EU has delivered fast and hard <strong>for polluters, rights-abusing corporations and shareholders, but not for people</strong>. </p> <p dir="ltr">The Commission has even undermined its own procedural safeguards, failing to provide impact assessments and credible scientific or economic evidence for key proposals, and neglecting meaningful consultation processes. When the European Ombudsman raised concerns, the Commission’s response was not to correct its approach, but to weaken its own better-regulation rules.</p> <p dir="ltr">At the same time, industry lobbying has unlocked billions in public subsidies, justified by claims of economic crisis and capital shortages that have since proven to be vastly overstated. Many of these same companies continue to prioritise short-term shareholder payouts over investing in a just and sustainable transition. </p> <p dir="ltr">Framing democratic rules as obstacles to growth fuels a dangerous race to the bottom, where the most harmful industries are rewarded with weaker rules and more public funding, while people face austerity and declining protections.</p> <p dir="ltr">We<em> </em>reject this corporate-led deregulation agenda. Europe’s industrial and economic strategy must strengthen — not sacrifice — environmental integrity, social justice, human rights and democratic accountability. Strong standards are not a burden — they are the foundation of Europe’s long-term economic resilience. Public money and political power must serve society as a whole, not entrench the influence and profits of the industries most responsible for the crises we face.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>To defend the public’s rights to health, to a livable environment and to decent working conditions, we say we need:</strong></p> <h2><strong>Rules to protect democracy, people and planet</strong></h2> <ol> <li dir="ltr"><strong>Re-vitalise European democracy</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">The second Von der Leyen Commission’s focus on competitiveness is reflected in its more intensive contact with corporate actors: 40% of meetings of Commissioners’ cabinet members were with company representatives, 29% with business associations, and only 16% with NGOs. This imbalance risks policy capture. In addition, the Commission has created new spaces, such as “Reality Check Workshops” and “Implementation Dialogues”, that are set up in an untransparent manner and further reinforce this imbalance, opening up new avenues for corporate influence.</p> <p dir="ltr">Civil society organisations, NGOs, environmental organisations, trade unions and academia, as key representatives of the public interest, must be heard, protected, and given meaningful access to decision-making. </p> <p dir="ltr">The EU’s current deregulation agenda reflects corporate lobbying more than the priorities of ordinary people: addressing the cost of living, ensuring strong public services, and taking decisive action on the climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises. Lawmaking must not be steered by the very industries responsible for pollution, climate harm, discrimination, unlawful processing of sensitive data, mass surveillance and other harms. These safeguards cannot be dismantled to satisfy the demands of the most polluting and risky sectors.</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead of shrinking civic space and sidelining public voices, the EU must strengthen democratic participation. </p> <ol start="2"> <li dir="ltr"><strong>Rules exist to protect the public</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">People across the EU are increasingly exposed to forever chemicals (PFAS), pesticide pollution and more frequent extreme weather. This generates huge costs to society, both economically and in terms of wellbeing. Instead of more “omnibuses” that undermine protections, we need better and stronger rules to ensure access to clean water, air, and food, guarantee safer workplaces, safeguard our privacy and personal data online, and protect us from risky applications of AI. </p> <p dir="ltr">People do not want toxic chemicals in their bodies, unsafe working conditions, polluted food and drinking water, or constant online tracking. Children should be able to play in parks without exposure to harmful substances like PFAS and families should not find forever chemicals (TFA) in their meals due to deregulated pesticides legislation. </p> <ol start="3"> <li dir="ltr"><strong>No blank cheque for polluting industries</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">Polluting industries are paying nosebleed dividends to shareholders, year-in year-out. From 2010 to 2023, European firms in key energy transition sectors generated €2.1 trillion in net profit and distributed €1.6 trillion to shareholders—a staggering 75.3% of their total net profits (and about 40% of Germany’s GDP, for comparison). They do not need extra capital injections paid by taxpayers, who face cuts to healthcare, education, and climate action. The problem is not a lack of capital — it is a misallocation of existing resources. We should invest in a future-oriented, toxic- free and decarbonised economy, not prop up toxic-fossil-intensive sectors resisting the energy and toxic-free transition. Finally, polluting companies should bear the costs of harm caused by their products, not society, respecting the Polluter Pays Principle.</p> <ol start="4"> <li dir="ltr"><em><strong>A new spirit of law-making</strong></em><strong> should be evidence-based law-making</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">Omnibus packages are dismantling crucial protections without scientific evidence or proper impact assessments. Proposals are short-sighted, industry-driven, and ignore their effects on people and the planet. Lawmaking must be evidence-based and safeguard health, rights, the environment, and Europe’s long-term sustainability goals. Basing laws on the immediate demands of profit-driven industries — often the very ones responsible for pollution, exploitation, techno-driven discrimination and the climate crisis — is fundamentally misguided.</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead, EU lawmaking should be grounded in solid evidence, expert advice, and the voices of the most impacted communities. Civil society organisations, NGOs, environmental organisations and trade unions, scientists, and independent experts must guide decision-making, ensuring policies serve people and the planet — not just a handful of polluting and energy-intensive companies.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Signed by:</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Friends of the Earth Europe<br>The Good Lobby<br>EPSU (European Public Service Union)<br>ClientEarth<br>Corporate Europe Observatory<br>EEB (European Environmental Bureau)<br>Transparency International EU<br>CAN Europe<br>foodwatch<br>Beelife<br>and other organisations<br> </p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open Letter, Pro-regulation Declaration.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/Open%20Letter%2C%20Pro-regulation%20Declaration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open Letter, Pro-regulation Declaration.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Addicted to the algorithm</h1> <p>Olivier Hoedeman — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:32:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> How Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>As the EU prepares the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to tackle the addictive nature of social media design, big tech companies are coming together to aggressively protect their business models. With Trumpists and far-right allies likely to join the chorus against the DFA, the Commission’s own drive for deregulation at all costs is not helping the chances of strong legislation.</em></p> <p>You’ve certainly experienced it: you grab your phone to do something specific, and end up getting lost in the maze of stimuli – sounds, colours, videos, notifications, urgent messages –so much so that you forget why you picked up the phone in the first place and stay far longer on it than planned. We keep inventing new words to describe aspects of the experience, whether it’s doomscrolling, internet rabbit holes, or brainrot. The good news is, this isn’t just something that happens to you. There’s a growing political consensus that this is a structural problem by design, that Big Tech has gone too far, and EU legislation is on the way to give you more control over addictive features in social media apps. The bad news is, Big Tech has begun a full scale lobbying battle against this legislation.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>As the European Commission is preparing rules to rein in the addictive design of social media app – as part of the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act – the tech industry is drawing on its considerable lobbying firepower to oppose it. The legislation comes in response to growing concerns about the public health impacts of social media addiction, both for children, adolescents, and adults alike. But the Big Tech giants behind Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and other social media apps are pushing back. Keeping people on the apps for as long as possible is a central part of their business model and restrictions in addictive features would hurt their profits and power. In its lobbying, Big Tech aims to capitalize on the fact that EU decision-makers – with Commission President von der Leyen in the lead – are currently heavily prioritising industrial competitiveness via deregulation over other concerns. This means there are major new obstacles for legislation to pass.</p> <h2><strong>Why legislation is needed to rein in addictive design</strong></h2> <p lang="en-GB">Social media addiction is reaching new peaks, with serious health impacts for large parts of the world’s population, not the least for children and young people. The average teen in the US now spends 4.8 hours per day on social media. In Europe, 97 per cent of young people go online every day and 78 per cent of 13 to 17 year olds check their devices at least once per hour. One quarter of minors display ‘problematic’ or ‘dysfunctional’ smartphone use. Both for minors and grownups, <a href="https://peoplevsbig.tech/briefing-protecting-children-and-young-people-from-addictive-design/">excessive screen time and social media use</a> has been shown to cause neurological harm (including reduced attention span and impulse control), psychological harm (anxiety, depression, self-harm, etc) and physical harm (reduced sleep and physical activity). Studies show they can also lead to <a href="https://archive.is/gBAMg">premature cognitive decline</a> in adults. As <em>The Economist</em> <a href="https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive">highlighted already a decade ago</a>, “Silicon Valley’s most successful tech companies use the insights of behaviour design to pump us with dopamine and keep us returning to their products”.</p> <blockquote><p>Social media platforms learned techniques from gambling companies to keep users hooked</p> </blockquote> <p>Tech critic, journalist, and podcast host <a href="https://disconnect.blog/social-media-must-be-reined-in/">Paris Marx has pointed out</a> that “social media platforms learned techniques from gambling companies to keep users hooked by using likes, notifications, and other methods to entice people to keep coming back, triggering dopamine responses that their brains craved even if the platforms made them feel worse at the same time.” <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.00054">Michelle Nie</a>, at the time working at the Open Markets Institute, highlights that “one main strategy to capture user attention and encourage addiction are interaction-based recommender systems, in particular personalized systems that are designed to keep users on the platform as long as possible, consume more advertisements, and generate maximum profits for tech companies." And things are getting worse, Nie points out, as “Big Tech has exponentially increased both the sophistication of their AI algorithms and the amount of proprietary data they collect on their users, which leads to exponential advances in the accuracy of recommender systems and their ability to hyper-personalize social media products”. </p> <p>Public awareness about the dangers of social media addiction reached new levels in 2021 when <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043207218/whistleblower-to-congress-facebook-products-harm-children-and-weaken-democracy">whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook research and communications</a> showing the company was aware of the serious problems caused by its platforms, including the grave risks of Instagram to the mental health of teenage girls. Facebook internal research leaked by Haugen showed that 13.5 per cent of teen girls said Instagram use worsens suicidal thoughts and 17 per cent of teen girls said Instagram contributes to their eating disorders. </p> <p>In addition to serious public health problems, addictive design consolidates the economic and political power of, and our societal dependency on, US tech giants. Addiction increases time spent on platforms beyond what people would actually prefer, which boosts data collection and advertising income for Big Tech. By using addictive design to boost user attention, Big Tech crowds out alternative forms of communication and information, at the expense of potential new competitors in social media markets, traditional media, and others. Addictive design also accelerates the concentration of attention in – and dependency on – a few giant platforms with excessive levels of power and control over digital interaction and information flows. </p> <blockquote><p lang="en-GB">Addictive design consolidates the economic and political power of, and our societal dependency on, US tech giants</p> </blockquote> <h2><strong>Anti-addictive design is possible</strong></h2> <p>The solution is clear: we need legislation to rein in what social media platforms are allowed to do. “Countries should consider regulating digital devices like smartphones in a similar way to tobacco products, to combat social media's rising negative impact on young people's mental health”, the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/education-stronger-regulation-protect-kids-social-media-misuse-smartphones-who-ban-addiction/">World Health Organization’s Natasha Azzopardi Muscat told <em>Politico</em></a>. “Anti-addictive design legislation”, Michelle Nie explains, “could include provisions requiring social media platforms to turn off attention-seeking features by default, to implement pagination instead of scrolling by default, demoting harmful or addictive content, and promoting and prioritizing alternative recommender systems based on chronological order or increased user control. These remedies, if implemented, would offer a healthier ‘content diet’ that is less likely to be addictive.” Political awareness is growing fast and last year several countries decided to ban social media for children under 16. Australia’s law took effect in December 2025, with Malaysia and France likely following soon, and Norway and other countries considering bans too. Such bans are clearly not the full solutions as they <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2026/01/26/social-media-age-bans-toxic-business-model/">leave other age groups unprotected</a> from the harms of addictive social media, but it shows the EU must act fast or risk lagging behind. </p> <p>Existing EU digital legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) does not address addictive design directly. It’s on this basis that the European Commission in 2024 decided to prepare a Digital Fairness Act, with tackling addictive design as one of the priorities.</p> <h2><strong>The Commission’s forthcoming proposal</strong></h2> <p>The Commission’s decision to propose a DFA was based on a digital fitness check undertaken in 2024, which highlighted addictive design as a major concern. In her <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">political guidelines after reappointment for a second term in summer 2024</a>, Commission President Von der Leyen promised that her Commission team would “tackle unethical techniques used by online platforms by taking action on the addictive design of online services, such as infinite scroll, default auto play or constant push.” A few months later, Justice Commissioner McGrath’s mission letter tasked him with developing a Digital Fairness Act to tackle, among other things, “the addictive design of digital products”. </p> <blockquote><p>For the European Commission, "a real possibility [...] is to turn off such addictive design features"</p> </blockquote> <p>The Commission’s DG JUST department seems to be moving ahead with ambition. “What we will be examining are options precisely to give users more effective control. So, a real possibility, for example, is to turn off such addictive design features,” Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou, head of the consumer law unit at the DG JUST, said at a conference in early 2025. Measures under consideration to address addictive design, at that stage, included broadening the definition of a “transactional decision” to give consumers, especially minors, more control over engagement features. This included <a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2341772/eu-digital-fairness-act-lobbying-asks-questions-over-enforcement-of-current-rules">disabling such features by default and enabling users to opt out of algorithm-driven recommendations</a>. A ban on particularly harmful features targeting children was also under consideration. After several delays, the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Fairness Act is now expected in the fourth quarter of 2026.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 1: Excuses, excuses: Big Tech’s three key arguments why addictive design doesn’t need regulation</strong></p> <p lang="en-GB">1. Big Tech argues the EU should focus on enforcement of existing laws, such as the DSA;</p> <p lang="en-GB">2. Big Tech claims regulation is not needed and voluntary initiatives will solve any problems;</p> <p>3. Big Tech says new legislation is at odds with the Commission’s commitment to prioritising industrial competitiveness through ‘simplification’ of legislation.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Big Tech’s lobbying against the DFA</strong></h2> <blockquote><p>In early 2025 several major Big Tech lobby groups spoke out even more strongly against the DFA, likely sensing favourable political opportunities</p> </blockquote> <p>Big Tech corporations and their lobby groups, as well as European tech companies, have wasted no time in attacking the proposed DFA. In autumn 2024 <a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2134573/european-commission-points-to-digital-problems-in-eu-consumer-law">the European Tech Alliance (EUTA)</a> immediately criticised the Commission’s Digital Fairness Fitness Check, arguing it didn’t take into account the impact of the DSA, the Digital Markets Act, the AI Act, and the Data Act dealing with similar topics. EUTA represents European tech companies such as Spotify, Trivago, and Booking. In its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Flash%20Report%20DG%20JUST%20s%20meeting%20with%20EUTA%2007.02.pdf">meeting with DG JUST</a> on 7 February 2025 the EUTA “expressed skepticism about the need for a DFA” and raised concern about the impact “of an additional layer of rules on competitiveness”.<em> </em><a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2336797/attachments/0">DigitalEurope</a> – whose members include Meta and TikTok – also weighed in, claiming that the challenges identified in the Commission’s analysis of existing law “stem not from gaps in the law, but from inconsistent and insufficient enforcement”.</p> <p>In early 2025 several major Big Tech lobby groups spoke out even more strongly against the DFA, likely sensing favourable political opportunities, given the Commission had by then clearly <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">embarked on a deregulation </a>agenda, and President Trump had entered the White House with strong backing from US Big Tech companies. Both <a href="https://www.digitaleurope.org/resources/digital-fairness-act-do-we-need-new-laws-or-simply-better-enforcement/">DigitalEurope, in its May 2025 position paper</a>, and a June 2025 <a href="https://doteurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Joint-industry-statement-on-the-Digital-Fairness-Act.pdf">joint statement by 10 tech lobby groups</a>, (including Big Tech lobby groups DOT Europe, CCIA, and Allied for Startups) argued that existing legislation was sufficient and claimed that the plans for new legislation were at odds with the Commission’s stated priorities of ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’. </p> <blockquote><p>Commission top officials have had at least 96 meetings with lobbyists on the DFA since December 2024</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s clear the lobbying battle gathered steam throughout 2025: according the EU Transparency Register, Commission top officials have had at least 96 meetings with lobbyists on the DFA since December 2024 (meetings with Digital Fairness Act mentioned as subject). A whopping 83 per cent of these meetings were with industry representatives (47 meetings were with companies, 28 with business lobby groups), whereas less than 14 per cent of the meetings were with NGOs (all of which were in favour of the DFA). Tech giants Apple, Google, Snap Inc, and Spotify topped the list with three or more lobby meetings with top Commission officials each. It is more than likely that the DFA was also discussed during many other lobby meetings with a different listed subject. On top of that, mid-level Commission officials also held lobby meetings on the DFA. Via a <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214">freedom of information request</a>, we received documents related to another 10 meetings of tech lobbyists with the specific unit inside DG JUST that is leading on preparing the legislative proposal (JUST.B.2), meetings that happened in the first half of 2025. Such lobby meetings with mid-level officials are not proactively disclosed on the Commission website. A follow-up request for access to documents related to <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873">more recent lobby meetings at DG JUST</a> is still pending, following our complaint about the lengthy delays (see also Box 4 on ‘Transparency setback’).</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB"><strong>Box 2: Big Tech’s ever increasing lobby spending </strong></p> <p>The tech industry has a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">massive and growing lobbying presence in Brussels</a>, with nearly <strong>900 full-time digital sector lobbyists</strong>, and of these hundreds hold European Parliament access badges. Tech lobby spending in Brussels has hit a record <strong>€151 million annually</strong>, a 33.6 per cent increase since 2023; just ten companies such as Meta and Google are responsible for one third of that total lobby spend to influence EU policy. </p> <p>Of the corporations most actively lobbying against the DFA, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/meta-platforms-ireland-limited-and-its-various-subsidiaries-f-k-a-facebook-ireland-limited?rid=28666427835-74">Meta is the biggest spender</a> with an EU lobbying budget of more than €10 million per year, with 30 lobbyists, 7 of which have a permanent access pass to the European Parliament. Notably, Meta’s lobbying offices are situated next to the US embassy in the Brussels EU quarter. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/google?rid=03181945560-59">Google</a> reports spending almost €5 million per year on lobbying, employing 23 lobbyists, 7 of which have parliamentary accreditation, and had 51 meetings with Commission high-level officials in 2025 – on average one meeting a week. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/tiktok-information-technologies-uk-limited?rid=165202837974-32">TikTok </a>spends up to €1.75 million euro per year on lobbying (11 lobbyists, 5 of which have parliament access passes). <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/snap-inc?rid=976985829492-08">Snap Inc</a>, without a Brussels office, spends €600-700,000 per year on EU lobbying and had a total of 16 meetings with Commission top officials in 2025.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The list of 96 lobby meetings shows that a wide range of companies and lobby groups are lobbying to influence the DFA, on a variety of different topics that might be covered in the new law. If we focus in on the lobbying around addictive design, it’s clear that the companies owning the most popular social media apps (Snap Inc, TikTok, Meta, and Google) have all been very actively pushing back against restrictions on their use of addictive methods. </p> <blockquote><p>Snap Inc, TikTok, Meta, and Google have all been very actively pushing back against restrictions on their use of addictive methods</p> </blockquote> <p>In a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MeetingMinutes-61%20Google.pdf">June 2025 meeting with Commissioner McGrath</a> on the DFA, <strong>Google</strong> (owner of YouTube, a platform with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/27/social-media-trial-meta-tiktok-youtube">highly addictive features</a>) “provided information about the economic value of targeted advertising”, which the company fears may be further restricted. In its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Google%20DFA%20Feedback.pdf">response to the European Commission's public consultation</a> in October 2025, Google stated its concerns “about proposals to ban or restrict popular digital features”, arguing that such features (autoplay, notifications, infinite scroll) can be beneficial or safety-critical depending on the context. Google argues that “policymakers should consider existing industry-led best practices”.</p> <p><strong>Snap Inc</strong>, the owner of Snapchat, had three meetings on the DFA with the cabinets of Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen. In the context of one of these meetings, Evan Spiegel, Chief Executive Officer of Snap Inc wrote to Commissioner McGrath wrongly claiming that the issues the DFA seeks to address, such as addictive design, “are already comprehensively regulated under the existing EU DSA” (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Thank%20you%20letter%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20Snap.pdf">letter of 27 May</a> 2025). Spiegel followed up a month later with a longer letter to McGrath claiming that “excessive regulatory burden” is one of the key root causes of the EU lagging behind in digital innovations (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Thank%20you%20letter%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20Snap.pdf">letter of 23 June</a> 2025). Spiegel calls for “new mechanisms to allow EU policymakers to fully assess the impact of new laws at the end of the legislative process”, after the trilogue phase. He mentioned the example of the DSA and its ban on targeted advertising to minors for online platforms, calling it “an extreme measure”. This ban was included in the DSA on the proposal of the European Parliament. Spiegel also insisted the Commission should be “avoiding overly prescriptive rules” and instead define “regulatory goals that allow flexibility in how companies meet them”. As examples of what should be avoided, Spiegel mentioned “blanket feature bans or horizontal ‘off-by-default’ rules, as discussed in the context of the upcoming DFA”. </p> <p><strong>TikTok</strong> also had several meetings on the DFA with Commission top officials, including two meetings with DG JUST officials on May 6<sup>th</sup> and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MeetingMinutes-114%20TikTok.pdf">May 30<sup>th</sup> 2025</a>. In its official <a href="https://newsroom.tiktok.com/our-views-on-the-digital-fairness-act-public-consultation?lang=en-150">response to the European Commission's public consultation</a> in October 2025, TikTok argued that current regulations are sufficient. The company advocates for a "risk-based" approach to minors' safety and "persuasive design" (the euphemism it prefers over "addictive design"), rather than blanket bans on features. In a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MEETING%20REQUEST%20%5Bearly%202025%5D%20Letter%20to%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20from%20TikTok%20CEO-1.pdf">December 2024 letter to Commissioner McGrath</a>, TikTok’s Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew claimed that “TikTok is still a relatively young player in Europe, but we have always taken our responsibilities very seriously”. A remarkable statement, considering that TikTok is under investigation by the European Commission in two formal proceedings under the DSA. The first proceeding focuses on the protection of minors, advertising transparency, data access for researchers, as well as the risk management of addictive design and harmful content. The other was launched 10 days after the cancellation of Romania's presidential elections in November 2024, amid allegations of Russian interference, and focuses on TikTok's recommender systems and policies on disclosing political advertisements and paid-for political content.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Letter from TikTok's CEO to EU Commissioner McGrath - "we have always taken our responsibilities very serious".</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Meta</strong> (the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DFA%20Meeting%20Meta%2001%2004%202025.pdf">met with Commission officials in April 2025</a> to discuss the forthcoming DFA and seemed to use the meeting mainly to outline the company’s child protection measures. The Meta lobbyists claimed to have introduced numerous measures on their platforms “to ensure age-appropriate experiences” and recommended device-level age verification and parental consent at the app store level, thereby passing the responsibility on to app stores and parents. According to the notes of the meeting, Meta lobbyists told the Commission that “Meta implemented ‘Teen accounts’ in Instagram, with default protective settings applied for users aged 13 to 16, which require parental approval for deactivation”. However, an investigation by the Molly Rose Foundation and others <a href="https://mollyrosefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Teen-Accounts-Broken-Promises-How-Instagram-is-failing-to-protect-minors.pdf">published in September 2025</a>, showed that Meta’s claims are unreliable. The report 'Teen Accounts, Broken Promises', found that Instagram's 'Teen Accounts' and its algorithms systematically fail to protect children from harmful content, such as material promoting self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders. <a href="https://fairplayforkids.org/instagram-teen-accounts-fail-to-protect-children-safety-tools-testing-reveals/">A key finding</a> is that “two-thirds (64%) of the safety tools we tested were ineffective, with just 17% working as Meta described — leaving children at risk of harmful content and abuse”. The report concludes that Meta “appears to be fundamentally unwilling to tackle the child safety risks that blight its products”. Based on these findings, the Meta lobbyists appear to have misinformed the European Commission.</p> <blockquote><p>The report 'Teen Accounts, Broken Promises', found that Instagram's 'Teen Accounts' and its algorithms systematically fail to protect children from harmful content</p> </blockquote> <p>Meta’s PR claims suffered another blow in November 2025 when documents released in the context of US court proceedings showed that the company had quietly shut down an internal research initiative, <a href="https://journalrecord.com/2025/11/24/meta-internal-study-mental-health/">Project Mercury</a>, when early findings showed that quitting Facebook had reduced anxiety and depression among users. Even a one-week break resulted in noticeable improvements in mental wellbeing. Meta decided to end the project and bury the findings, which contradicted the company’s claims about the safety of its platforms. An unnamed Meta staff researcher compared Meta’s actions with the tobacco industry’s record, in previous decades, of suppressing research showing how harmful their products are. The documents surfaced in the context of a <a href="https://www.motleyrice.com/social-media-lawsuits/school-disctricts-lawsuit">lawsuit by US school districts against Meta and other social media platforms</a>.</p> <p>Moreover, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.11507">a recent study</a> shows that half of all scientific studies on the impact of social media on society have ties to industry. According to the study, academic authors with ties to Meta were the most common at 14 per cent, followed by Google (8 per cent) and Microsoft (6 per cent). As the study acutely notes, industries producing harmful products have often successfully redirected scientific research to spread doubt. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In a meeting with EU Commission officials about the DFA, Meta lobbyists promoted the company's Teen Accounts in Instagram as a safe space for teenagers.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Meta appears to have only had one meeting with DG Just about the Digital Fairness Act during 2025 (but the DFA may have been discussed in the company’s other meetings on other subjects), and it looks like they did not submit feedback to the Commission’s public consultation. This seems surprising for the company that perhaps has most at stake, and also has <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/facebook-ireland-limited?rid=28666427835-74">the highest lobbying budget</a> of any individual company in Brussels. Meta might have chosen to keep a low profile in this stage of decision-making, ensuring its lobbying demands were promoted by others. Meta’s Transparency Register entry lists the company’s affiliations to no less than 70 organisations, ranging from the American Chamber of Commerce EU, Business Europe, DigitalEurope, IAB Europe, the Transatlantic Policy Network, over the Lisbon Council, Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS), to the Consumer Choice Center Europe (or CCC Europe).</p> <h2><strong>Big Tech funded ‘consumer’ lobbyists</strong></h2> <blockquote><p>Consumer Choice Center Europe is currently fully financed by Meta and Google, which means it should be seen as part of the lobbying by US Big Tech</p> </blockquote> <p>The role of CCC Europe is worth highlighting. In autumn 2025 Euronews’ TechNews section published several articles on EU digital policy issues “as part of an agreement with EU Tech Loop”, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/10/19/public-consultation-for-digital-fairness-act-exposes-europes-survey-sore-spots">including two on the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act</a>. EU Tech Loop is run by the CCC Europe, a controversial organisation that claims to represent consumers but <a href="https://euobserver.com/81553/revealed-the-eu-lobbying-of-the-so-called-consumer-choice-center/#:~:text=Revealed:%20The%20EU%20lobbying%20of%20the%20so-called%20'Consumer%20Choice%20Center'&text=The%20so-called%20Consumer%20Choice%20Center%2C%20a%20libertarian,petrol%20cars%20and%20green%20farming%20reforms%20d">lobbies against consumer protection</a>. CCC Europe is currently <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_en?id=634783053106-61">fully financed by Meta and Google</a>, which means it should be seen as part of the lobbying by US Big Tech against the EU’s digital rulebook, including the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act. CCC Europe has had seven meetings with centre-right MEPs on digital policy since December 2024 and lists the DFA as a policy focus in <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_en?id=634783053106-61">its entry in the EU lobby transparency register</a>. CCC Europe’s mother organisation (the Consumer Choice Center, with which it shares an address in the US) has <a href="https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/consumer-choice-center">a long history of being funded by the tobacco industry</a> and lobbying for nicotine and tobacco products. We wrote to Euronews to ask for clarification, but haven’t received a response, despite several reminders. The EU Tech Loop content published on the Euronews website doesn’t mention that it’s funded by Big tech corporations. This means Euronews is allowing a Big Tech front group to covertly influence public opinion, without enabling readers to take into account the origins of the content. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB"><strong>Box 3: Other key lobbying players</strong></p> <p lang="en-GB">Other players in the lobbying offensive against reining in addictive design of social media include:</p> <p>→ <strong>BusinessEurope</strong>, one of Europe’s most powerful corporate lobby groups, included the DFA in its December 2025 <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-12-18-BusinessEurope_Mapping-of-regulatory-burden_December-2025.pdf">hitlist of 44 existing or forthcoming laws</a> that it considers to be an unacceptable ‘regulatory burden’. “We do not see the need for new rules to be adapted”, BusinessEurope states, without offering any substantive arguments.</p> <p>→ <strong>The Federation of European Data and Marketing (FEDMA),</strong> a coalition of postal and ad tech companies, in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Flash%20report%20meeting%20with%20FEDMA%2019%2002%202025.pdf">a 19 February</a> meeting told the Commission that “legislation is not needed but instead better enforcement” of existing legislation.</p> <p>→ <strong>The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)</strong>, which lobbies for the online advertising industry and has representatives from Google and Microsoft on its board, opposes enabling consumers to opt out of personalised advertising. Such opt-outs are being considered to protect privacy and avoid manipulation of consumer behaviour. In an <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Ares%202025%203527727%20email%20Redacted%20IAB%20Europe.pdf">email following a meeting with Commission McGrath</a>, the IAB told the Commission that competing “means being able to sell <em>personalised</em> ads” as advertisers are willing to pay more for this. In a <a href="https://iabeurope.eu/the-digital-fairness-act-and-the-eus-simplification-paradox/">November 2025 op-ed</a>, the IAB claims that the DFA will lead to “a de facto ban on personalised advertising” and insists that problems around influencer marketing should be left to “industry-led initiatives”. The IAB <a href="https://iabeurope.eu/the-digital-fairness-act-and-the-eus-simplification-paradox/">plays the deregulation card</a> and warns that “the future Digital Fairness Act risk departing from the simplification principle guiding the second von der Leyen Commission”. The DFA “will serve as an early indicator of whether the Commission’s commitment to regulatory self-constraint is genuine.<strong>“ </strong></p> <p>→ <a href="https://www.epicenternetwork.eu/briefings/digital-fairness-without-red-tape-designing-smarter-eu-consumer-protection/"><strong>The Epicenter</strong></a>, a coalition of hardline neoliberal thinktanks linked to the <a href="https://multinationales.org/en/investigations/the-atlas-network-france-and-the-eu/">Atlas Network</a> (a global network with a long record of pro-corporate agenda, undermining climate science, and pushing neoliberal policies) warns that “the DFA risks undermining innovation, competitiveness and legal clarity”.</p> <p>→ <a href="https://progresschamber.org/insights/assessing-europes-digital-fairness-act/"><strong>The Chamber of Progress</strong></a>, a controversial Google-funded lobby group headquartered in the US but also actively lobbying Brussels, claims that the DFA is “seeking solutions for poorly-evidenced problems that existing regulations already address”.</p> <p>→ <strong>the army of lobby consultancy firms</strong> working for Big Tech, including <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?rid=29896393398-67">FTI Consulting</a> (clients include Meta and Google), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/apco-worldwide?rid=81995781088-41&sid=222096">APCO</a> (clients include TikTok), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/teneo-strategy?rid=705615811388-66">Teneo</a> (lobbies for Snap Inc), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fipra-international-srl?rid=58746194306-23">FIPRA</a>, and many more.</p> <p>→ <strong>law firms</strong> that provide lobbying services, such as <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/hogan-lovells-international-llp?rid=162092429393-66">Hogan Lovells</a> and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/white--case-llp?rid=941612350168-88">White & Case</a> (both of lobbied for Meta), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alber--geiger?rid=67820416722-09">Alber & Geiger</a> and many others.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Public consultation shows support for strong DFA</strong></h2> <p>The public consultation on the DFA in autumn 2025 attracted over 3300 responses, with a large majority favouring new binding rules to tackle addictive design. The <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/public_consultation_on_the_digital_fairness_act_factual_summary_report.pdf">Commission summary report</a> ( December 2025) shows that a large share of respondents think that new binding rules are needed concerning addictive design features (70 per cent). Of those supporting new rules, 78 per cent think such features should be switched off by default for minors, and 58 per cent want these features to be switched off by default for everyone, allowing consumers to opt in if they wish. Interestingly, SMEs are far more supportive of such measures than large enterprises and business associations. </p> <p>After the public consultation ended in mid-October 2025, the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3750">Consumer Policy Advisory Group</a> (an advisory group consisting of consumer organisations and industry lobby groups) is now reviewing the findings to help shape the Commission’s proposal. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 4: Transparency setback </strong></p> <p>Monitoring Big Tech lobbying around the DFA has been complicated by a recent setback to EU transparency. In December 2024 the Commission increased the number of officials whose meetings with lobbyists are published online to around 1,500, and announced that <a href="https://danielfreund.eu/success-for-lobby-transparency-1500-eu-officials-publish-lobby-meetings/?lang=en">the minutes of these meetings would also be made public</a>. However, what initially seemed like a significant advance in transparency has now been revealed to be of limited value, if not a step backwards. The notes from lobby meetings published on the Commission’s website are often extremely brief and lack meaningful substance (see for instance this <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=f9ff2cd4-f7dc-4b6d-be5f-dae468c29635&host=no">meeting on the DFA</a>). Freedom of information (FOI) requests for minutes of meetings of top Commission officials did not deliver any more comprehensive notes. The European Ombudsman is<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ombudsman-probes-commission-industry-watchdog-agenda-ngo-lobbying/"> investigating the Commission’s new, less transparent approach</a>. Ironically, notes released for Big Tech lobby meetings with lower-level officials were far more detailed than those for high-level officials.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Will the DFA survive the deregulation agenda?</strong></h2> <p>In addition to Big Tech’s lobbying power, the DFA is facing at least four other serious obstacles: the current obsession among European decision-makers with promoting ‘industry competitiveness’ via deregulation; the aggressive pressure from the US Government against any policies disliked by its Big Tech firms; the growing power of the MAGA-inspired far-right in EU politics; and the tendency to limit the debate about social media addiction to rules for minors only.</p> <p>Ursula Von Der Leyen has, in her second term <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">embraced a radical deregulation agenda</a>, which has already resulted in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">a proposed Digital Omnibus</a> that would reopen and weaken existing data privacy and Artificial Intelligence laws. As part of the deregulation agenda, the Commission is hosting a large number of events to gather stakeholder input on how to ‘simplify’ legislation, events where industry representati ves typically massively outnumber other interests. Some of the events on digital policy were less biased. McGrath told participants at ‘Implementation Dialogue on consumer law’ that DFA will include simplification, but only of “unjustified burdens”. “Simplification and burden reduction will be important elements”, a DG Just official told the Information Technology Council, a US based lobby group, during <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Meeting%20minutes%20Nils%20Behrndt%20DDG%20JUST%20meeting%20with%20the%20Information%20Technology%20Council%20ITT%20on%20Digital%20Fairness%20Act%20on%2012%2003%202025.pdf">a meeting in March 2025</a>. </p> <blockquote><p>Ursula Von Der Leyen has, in her second term embraced a radical deregulation agenda</p> </blockquote> <p>As part of the deregulation agenda, the Commission has also introduced several new impact assessments for new draft laws. The draft legislative proposal for a DFA will need to go through a competitiveness check, a Single Market Check, and a SME Check, all of which could lead to weakening of the draft law. Also <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/european-commission-body-biased-ombudsman-and-eu-lawmakers-step-in/#:~:text=Pircher%20added%20that%20the%20main,even%20for%20MEPs%20or%20Council">the Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a> (RSB) will assess the proposal and – with new instructions from the second Von der Leyen Commission – the RSB is likely to be more radically ‘competitiveness’-focused than ever; a yellow or a red card is likely. This would require the Commission to revise its draft law. As mentioned earlier, industry lobby groups are heavily referring to the Commission’s ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’ agenda in their lobbying against the DFA. They will undoubtedly seek to use the impact assessment phase later this year to weaken the draft law.</p> <blockquote><p>Industry lobby groups are heavily referring to the Commission’s ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’ agenda in their lobbying against the DFA</p> </blockquote> <p>Ever since Trump retook the White House,<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/trumps-trade-war-against-protective-rules"> the US Government has launched unprecedented attacks </a>on EU digital regulations, describing the Digital Services Act and other tech laws as discriminatory "overseas extortion" and "regulatory suffocation", making repeated threats of punishing the EU with tariffs and fees. The US Government’s February 2025 aggressive ‘Overseas Extortion’ Memorandum claimed that EU fines and regulations are discriminating against US Big Tech corporations and “violate US sovereignty”. The <a href="https://ustr.gov/">US Trade Representative (USTR)</a> has warned that it would use "every tool at its disposal," if the EU goes ahead with enforcing digital legislation. In November 2025, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick demanded that the EU should weaken its digital regulations in order to get a deal to lower steel and aluminum tariffs. "We are talking to them about" rolling back EU tech rules, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/lutnick-says-eu-must-change-digital-rules-for-steel-tariff-deal">Lutnick said in an interview</a>.</p> <h2><strong>DFA and the European Parliament - more hurdles ahead?</strong></h2> <p>When the Commission’s legislative proposal is launched later this year, it will go to the European Parliament and member state governments. Already before the Parliament gets formally involved, MEPs have had at least 41 meetings with lobbyists on the subject of the Digital Fairness Act since October 2024, virtually all with tech lobbyists. This included MEP Aura Salla, a former Facebook lobbyist, who met Big Tech lobby group CCIA on the DFA in September 2025, and recently also met Snap, Digital Europe, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, France Digital, and numerous other tech lobbies in meetings on digital issues. Whereas the Parliament passed a strong resolution in 2023 calling for legislation to tackle addictive design, there are several reasons to be worried about whether this level of ambition is still there. The conservative EPP group of MEPs has a strong focus on minors – there is a risk that protections will only be introduced for children / youth, whereas there should be <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2026/01/26/social-media-age-bans-toxic-business-model/">measures taken for everyone</a>. </p> <blockquote><p>Inspired by Trump’s MAGA movement, the European far right is intensifying its attacks on the Digital Services Act</p> </blockquote> <p>The far right political groups came out stronger from the June 2024 European Parliament elections and are increasingly hostile to strict regulation of social media, which could also become a hurdle for the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act. Inspired by Trump’s MAGA movement, the European far right is intensifying its attacks on the Digital Services Act (DSA) which obliges social media giants to identify and mitigate risks stemming from their algorithmic systems, such as the amplification of illegal content and manipulation of elections. The provisions regarding illegal content concern content that is <em>already illegal</em> under EU or national laws, such as child sexual abuse material, hate speech, or terrorist content. Despite this fact, groups like the Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Orbán-linked MCC Brussels are making sweeping statements against the DSA. The ADF, actually a US organisation challenging abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, and transgender rights, claims that the DSA’s mandated risk assessments of algorithms <a href="https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118565/witnesses/HHRG-119-JU00-Wstate-PriceL-20250903-U5.pdf">could lead to censorship</a>. MCC Brussels launched its attack on the DSA <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/uploads/default/0001/02/119c80a7009b7426dc435b0869fb2604b7a3ebb8.pdf">in a report last autumn</a>, claiming the law results in ‘digital censorship’ and ‘stifles free speech’. </p> <p>At the end of November 2025 the European Parliament passed <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2025-0213_EN.pdf">a resolution on “Protection of minors online”</a>, calling for age restrictions on use of social media. The resolution suggests children should be 16 before accessing social media, with the option of parents allowing access from the age of 13. The resolution also calls for legislation to “ban the most harmful addictive practices and disable addictive design features by default for minors”. The resolution was approved with a large majority of 483 MEPs, with 92 opposing and 86 abstentions. Numerous <a href="https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/181520">far right MEPs from the ECR, PFE, and ESN groups</a> abstained or voted against the resolution, with an MEP from the Polish PiS claiming such decisions should be made by member state governments, not on the EU level. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 5: Addictive design, extreme content, and the far right</strong></p> <p>The addictive and manipulative design of social media platforms is also a key factor in the drive for more extreme content. The effect is to push society towards more political extremes. That’s because, when platforms are designed to maximise engagement, their algorithms are more likely to favour and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth">push content</a> that triggers strong emotional responses such as fear, anger, hate, outrage, and titillation in order to keep our attention. As neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux notes, triggering these emotions has a similar effect on the brain's reward system as addictive substances. Thus there is a structural incentive for content to be more exaggerated, polarising, fearmongering, conspiracy-laden, hate-speech adjacent, or rage-bait. Misinformation proliferates in these environments. While algorithms are not solely responsible for these becoming more prevalent in society, the profit motives of Big Tech are surely not an insignificant factor. Algorithms often feed users extreme content and once they've clicked on this, they can feed them more and more of this type of content. This is often how people become both hooked and radicalised online. <br><br>Social media companies are often reluctant to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms. But they are designed by choice, and could be designed differently. For example, <a href="https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/audrey-tang/">Taiwan's former digital minister, Audrey Tang</a>, has developed and promoted algorithms that helped generate consensus and democratic discussion (referred to as 'bridging-based algorithms').</p> <p>MAGA (and many in far right European parties) oppose regulating the addictive nature of social media. Not coincidentally their allies’ social media investments are handing over vast political influence and control over our information environments. Elon Musk lost money but gained influence when he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/04/elon-musk-x-trump-far-right">bought X</a>, and tech billionaire and MAGA-ally Larry Ellison’s recent deal with <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/new-us-tiktok-spinoff-will-be-controlled-by-trump-aligned-billionaires/">TikTok</a> includes control of its US algorithm. We shouldn’t underestimate how fundamentally threatening these moves are to democracy. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Big Tech versus civil society, youth, and parents</strong></h2> <p>There’s a massive and very unequal lobbying battle ahead, between the tech industry with its 900 Brussels-based lobbyists and €150 million-plus lobby spending versus civil society groups like <a href="https://edri.org/">EDRi </a>and <a href="https://www.beuc.eu/priorities/digital-rights">BEUC</a> with far, far less resources. But civil society has public opinion on its side and citizens, increasingly fed up with Big Tech and its outsized power, are getting organised. </p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/03/europeans-want-tougher-eu-enforcement-of-big-tech-poll">a YouGov survey</a> showed that large majorities of French, Spanish, and German citizens want stricter EU enforcements of digital regulations and consider Big Tech to be too powerful. A recent poll in Denmark showed "42% of Danes want to try new alternatives to Big Tech and 68% would like to reduce their screen time”. Denmark is one of the countries that has seen new citizens’ groups emerge to take on the power of Big Tech. <a href="https://danmarkskifter.dk/">Danmark Skifter</a> (Denmark Shifts) is a national campaign “where thousands of Danes take back control of their digital lives – not alone, but together". Another sign of the growing demand for reining in Big Tech’s power abuse is the petition “Make TikTok safer for children and young people”, signed by over 170,000 people and delivered to TikTok’s European headquarters in Dublin in November 2025. It calls on TikTok to “address its toxic and addictive design”, which “risks sending them down rabbit holes of triggering depressive and self-harm-related content”.</p> <p>Another important development is the launch of <a href="https://ctrl-alt-reclaim.org/">ctrl+alt+reclaim</a>, Europe's first youth-led tech justice movement. The youth activists demand that their wellbeing “be prioritized over Big Tech's $11 billion in profits from minors alone”. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/09/youth-movement-digital-justice-spreading-across-europe">The group’s demands</a> includes “a safer, healthier, more equitable social media environment” and “an end to the stranglehold a handful of US-based corporations have over social media and online spaces”. ctrl+alt+reclaim is also considering campaigning for “an EU-funded social media platform, an alternative to the big tech oligopoly, created by and for the public”. Other important civil society initiatives against Big Tech’s addiction machine bring together teachers, healthcare professionals, and parents with organizations such as <a href="https://www.smartphonefreechildhood.org/">Smartphone Free Childhood</a>, Parents for Safe Online Spaces (ParentsSOS), and <a href="https://www.klicksafe.eu/en">klicksafe</a> in Europe, and <a href="https://wearemama.org/">Mothers Against Media Addiction</a> (MAMA) in the US.</p> <p>The burning question for 2026 and the coming years is: will EU decision-makers stand up for the public interest and rein in the addictive design of social media, or will they back down due to Big Tech lobbying pressure? Will the Digital Fairness Act survive the current harsh political climate, with the top of the European Commission now prioritising corporate competitiveness via deregulation, and the Trump administration and the far right in Europe siding with Big Tech in opposing regulation? What’s at stake is nothing less than the future of democracy in Europe. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Take action! Sign to stop social media addiction: </strong>Avaaz has launched an online petition calling upon EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen to prohibit the addictive techniques used by social media platforms. <em>Sign the initiative </em><a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_social_media_addiction_loc/">here</a><em>.</em></p> <p lang="en-GB"> </p> <p><em><strong>Methodology</strong>: this report analysed the publicly-disclosed lobby meetings (as of 29 January 2026) of European Commissioners, high-level Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament. This included using the search and ranking functions of LobbyFacts.eu and IntegrityWatch.eu. The analysis also builds on more than 70 documents released by the European Commission following six different access to documents requests, focusing on top officials from DG JUST (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/tech_industry_lobby_meetings_wit#incoming-62221"><em>here</em></a><em>, </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/lobby_meetings_on_digital_fairne"><em>here</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/documents_related_to_lobby_meeti#incoming-62634"><em>here</em></a><em>), DG JUST B.2 (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214"><em>here</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873"><em>here</em></a><em>) as well as DG Connect (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/meetings_with_stakeholders_on_th_9#incoming-61203"><em>here</em></a><em>). </em></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Addicted to the algorithm</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New research exposes how Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 5 February 2026</strong> – As the European Commission prepares a new Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to tackle addictive design of social media and other harmful digital practices, new research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reveals intense lobbying by Big Tech and industry groups to block or water down meaningful measures against social media addiction.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Commission’s Justice Department (DG JUST) is considering ambitious measures to curb addictive design features and harmful algorithmic practices. However, these efforts are facing fierce opposition from major Big Tech companies, including Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap, as well as an extensive network of industry lobby groups and think tanks.</p> <p>‘<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-how-big-tech-lobbies-keep-us-hooked-social-media">Addicted to the algorithm: how Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media</a>’ reveals that tech giants and their lobbying organisations have enjoyed privileged access to Commission decision-makers, while promoting dubious arguments, ranging from calls for self-regulation to claims that new rules would undermine the EU's competitiveness.</p> <p>Key findings include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Commission officials met lobbyists more than 100 times</strong> on the Digital Fairness Act since December 2024. 83% of the lobby meetings that Commission top officials had on the DFA were with industry representatives, including 47 meetings with individual companies and 28 with business lobby groups. By contrast, less than 14% of these meetings were held with NGOs and trade unions.</li> <li><strong>Meta lobbyists presented misleading claims</strong> to the European Commission about the safety of Instagram for young women. These claims are contradicted by several recent independent studies as well as analyses of Meta’s own internal documents that have entered the public domain via whistleblowers and US court cases.</li> <li>The <strong>Consumer Choice Center</strong> – a lobby group funded by <strong>Google and Meta</strong> – has launched a project called ‘EU Tech Loop’, which publishes articles on EU digital policies on the Euronews website. The content closely echoes Big Tech talking points, which raises questions about untransparent influencing via EU media spaces.</li> <li>Beyond Big Tech’s lobbying firepower, the DFA is facing <strong>at least four other obstacles</strong>: the current obsession among EU decision-makers with industry competitiveness via deregulation, pressure from the Trump administration, the growing power of the far right in EU politics, and the tendency to limit debate on social media addiction to rules for minors.</li> </ul> <p>The investigation was further hindered by the recent rollback of transparency rules by the European Commission, meaning that detailed minutes of meetings between top officials and lobbyists are no longer systematically made available to the public, making it more difficult to scrutinise Big Tech influence.</p> <p><strong>Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory research and campaign coordinator</strong>, says: <em>“The addictive design of social media has become a major societal problem with serious impacts on public health and endangering the future of democracy. Any weakening of the needed regulation, in the name of 'simplification' or ‘competitiveness’, would only benefit the already excessively powerful US-based tech giants. </em></p> <p><em>EU decision-makers should stand up against Big Tech lobbying, protect the public interest and rein in the addictive design of social media.”</em></p> <p>Opinion polls show that EU citizens want stricter regulation of Big Tech, while a growing number of grassroots citizens groups across Europe are campaigning against addictive design, harmful algorithms and other abusive digital practices. Whether the Digital Fairness Act lives up to these expectations will depend on whether EU institutions prioritise public health and democratic accountability over corporate lobbying pressure.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For press inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory campaign and research coordinator</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="byvivre/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 4 74486545</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>You can read the full report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-how-big-tech-lobbies-keep-us-hooked-social-media">here</a></li> <li><strong>Methodology</strong>: this article analysed the publicly-disclosed lobby meetings (as of 29 January 2026) of European Commissioners, high-level Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament. The analysis also builds on more than 70 documents released by the European Commission following six different access to documents requests, focusing on top officials from DG JUST (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/tech_industry_lobby_meetings_wit#incoming-62221">here</a>, <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/lobby_meetings_on_digital_fairne">here</a> and <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/documents_related_to_lobby_meeti#incoming-62634">here</a>), DG JUST B.2 (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214">here</a> and <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873">here</a>) as well as DG Connect (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/meetings_with_stakeholders_on_th_9#incoming-61203">here</a>). </li> <li>The Digital Fairness Act legislative proposal is expected in the last quarter of 2026.</li> <li>In October 2025, CEO <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/new-analysis-exposes-deep-influence-big-tech-eu-commissions-roll-back-digital-rights">published a report</a> on the tech industry’s lobbying firepower. </li> <li><strong>Sign to stop social media addiction: </strong>Avaaz has launched an online petition calling upon EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen to prohibit the addictive techniques used by social media platforms. <em>Sign the initiative </em><a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_social_media_addiction_loc/">here</a><em>.</em></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-0" hreflang="en">Addicted to the algorithm</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>New briefing calls out scientific deception by chemicals industry</h1> <p>Anonymous — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">02.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides & GMOs</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Despite the need for urgency to tackle the <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html">toxic chemical pollution crisis</a>, regulation is not protecting people’s health and the planet, with a major contributor being the deceptive tactics that chemical companies and their allies deploy around science in order to keep producing and selling their toxic products.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>This is the conclusion of a new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">briefing</a> ‘The Pollution Playbook: how industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals’ published by the <a href="https://www.ciel.org/">Center for International Environmental Law</a> (CIEL) and Corporate Europe Observatory, which is being launched at the start of the inaugural panel of the UN Environment Programme’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (<a href="https://www.unep.org/isp-cwp/plenary">ISP-CWP</a>) on 2-6 February in Geneva. This panel will provide scientific assessments on chemicals, waste, and pollution to inform policymaking at the national, regional, and global levels, and thus must be led by independent science. </p> <p>Through four case studies (PFAS / forever chemicals, bisphenol A, benzene, and pesticides), the briefing explores corporate scientific disinformation tactics from withholding scientific knowledge of a substance’s harm and undermining independent science to establishing front groups and ghostwriting scientific studies.</p> <p>Independent, accurate science is essential for assessing and regulating hazardous substances to prevent harm to human health and the environment. The cases featured here, together with decades of other real-life examples, have illustrated that the companies that manufacture harmful chemicals frequently downplay, misrepresent, or manipulate scientific information about their products to resist or delay regulation.</p> <p>Today, CIEL and Corporate Europe Observatory insist that companies that produce harmful chemicals (and their lobby allies) should be banned from participating in regulatory processes for the hazardous substances they manufacture and the wider chemicals policy landscape. This would mirror the <a href="https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/guidelines-for-implementation-of-article-5.3">approach</a> taken by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which requires that the tobacco industry is not involved in public health policy. To enforce this approach in the chemicals sphere, there should be clear conflict-of-interest rules and procedures for policymaking and scientific spaces, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution. Crucially, officials must urgently establish strong, well-funded, properly independent scientific channels that can serve as the basis for decision-making on chemical regulation, thereby avoiding reliance on industry-provided data.</p> <p><strong>Rachel Radvany from CIEL said:</strong></p> <p><em>“Policies should protect human health and the environment, not corporate profits. Time and time again, companies that profit from products that harm our health try to block regulations that would limit those profits. We must act to protect policymaking spaces from vested interests so that they can serve the people, not companies.” </em></p> <p><strong>Vicky Cann from Corporate Europe Observatory said:</strong></p> <p><em>“It is an absolute scandal that chemical companies have used scientific deception to prevent tougher regulations on forever chemicals, pesticides, and many other substances which impact our health. Decision-makers around the world must stand up to toxics producers, recognise their commercial interests, and instead base regulation on truly independent science.”</em></p> <p><em>ENDS</em></p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Vicky Cann, <a href="#" data-mail-to="ivpxl/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +44 7960 988096</p> <p>Nina Holland, <a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +32 466 294420</p> <p>Cate Bonacini, <a href="#" data-mail-to="cerff/ng/pvry/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +1-510-520-9109</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>The new briefing ‘The Pollution Playbook: how industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals’ is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">here</a>.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>The Pollution Playbook</h1> <p>Anonymous — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 07:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> How industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">02.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides & GMOs</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/851" hreflang="en">Plastics</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Toxic chemical pollution is a global crisis. More than 350,000 chemicals and mixtures have been identified in inventories across countries and regions, and evidence shows that many industrial chemicals are harmful to human health. Despite increasing evidence of hazardous chemicals in the environment and in human bodies, there are many regulatory gaps. As this new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf">briefing</a> published by the <a href="https://www.ciel.org/">Center for International Environmental Law</a> (CIEL) and Corporate Europe Observatory shows, while there are many reasons for this, a major contributor to this regulatory gap is the deceptive tactics that manufacturers use to keep producing and selling their toxic products.</p> <p>The briefing is also available in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Le%20guide%20de%20la%20pollution.pdf">French</a> and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Compendio%20de%20estrategias%20frente%20a%20la%20contaminaci%C3%B3n.pdf">Spanish</a>, while there is also a shorter summary briefing in English <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/CIEL_Pollution_Playbook_factsheet_4.14.26_QR.pdf">here</a>. You can also listen to our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/pollution-playbook-how-industry-blocks-regulation-toxic-chemicals">podcast</a> with Nina Holland, Rachel Radvany and Olivier de Schutter.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>From tobacco to fossil fuels, from plastics to chemicals, there is a long history of corporate interests and their allies using deceptive tactics to avoid regulation of harmful products.</p> <p>When industry manufactures doubt, lobbies regulators and politicians, and wrongly presents its products as ‘safe’ to delay, limit, or impede regulations at the national, regional, or global level, it does so at the expense of human health and the environment.</p> <p>Companies often present themselves as essential partners in policymaking because they have unique access to the data on their chemicals and often claim ‘confidentiality. However, the historical record indicates a pattern of dishonest engagement in policy and regulatory processes through hidden data and manipulation or through attempts to discredit independent science that shows the harms of their products. Trade secrets and confidentiality must not be used as excuses to embed manufacturers and lobbyists in policymaking processes and decision-making bodies.</p> <p>Companies and their trade associations should not be able to influence policymaking for hazardous substances they manufacture or the wider chemicals policy landscape. Institutions need to develop strong conflict-of-interest policies to safeguard policymaking from vested interests.</p> <p>Read our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf">briefing</a> and check out the four case studies:</p> <ul> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry withholding knowledge - PFAS / forever chemicals</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry undermining independent science - Bisphenol A</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry establishing front groups - Benzene</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry combining disinformation strategies - Pesticides</p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction" hreflang="en">Chemical reaction</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Compendio%20de%20estrategias%20frente%20a%20la%20contaminaci%C3%B3n.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Le guide de la pollution" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Le%20guide%20de%20la%20pollution.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Le guide de la pollution</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Pollution Playbook factsheet" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/CIEL_Pollution_Playbook_factsheet_4.14.26_QR.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pollution Playbook factsheet</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Dissecting deregulation</h1> <p>Vicky Cann — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:48:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> A series of cartoons </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">22.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission is taking a political chainsaw to hard won social, environmental, and digital protections. Find out more at <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a> and our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true">Omnibus tracker</a>. And check out these new cartoons below by @cartoonRalph.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission and industry both like to talk about “simplification” of EU laws, which makes it sounds like a mild and gentle process. Other favourite phrases include “streamlining” or “cutting red tape”. But let’s be clear: the EU's simplification agenda is about cutting social, green, & digital protections.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU's deregulation chainsaw is being wielded in several ways. Ten omnibuses (so far) have been announced by the Commission including on sustainability, chemicals, pesticides, digital, agriculture, defence, pollution. These rules are under attack. See our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true">Omnibus tracker</a> for more detail.</p> <p><br><br> </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>There have also been numerous so-called “reality checks” which feed into the deregulatory Omnibus process. But these Commission “reality checks” are <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">pseudo consultations</a>, dominated by industry, and operating on ridiculously short timelines.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>And the Commission looks set to continue its turbo-charged deregulation agenda. There are rumours of more omnibuses, while other much-needed rules in the pipeline now look as if they will be substantially weakened, for example on <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/forever-chemical-firms-continue-forever-eu-lobbying">PFAS / forever chemicals</a> or wider chemicals reforms.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We need Rules to Protect citizens and the planet, not deregulation. As 470 groups have <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/our-protection-must-not-be-sold-profit">demanded</a>, the Commission needs to stop doing bidding of big business and get back to regulating in public interest. Check out <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.03.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.07.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave" hreflang="en">A crash course on the EU’s deregulation wave</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Forever-chemical firms continue forever EU lobbying</h1> <p>Vicky Cann — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:56:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Op ed in EU Observer </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">It's been exactly a year since the revelations of the <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/">Forever Lobbying Project</a> about both the devastating impacts of forever chemicals (or PFAS), and the corporate influence campaign that has kept these harmful substances in our food, water, soil, and bodies. </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">The compelling nature of the Project’s <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar5e55ebc1">evidence</a> should have led EU officials working on the proposed ban on PFAS ‒ persistent chemicals found in products from frying pans to air conditioning units ‒ to re-consider their contacts with the industry lobby, and to ensure that the promised ban is as wide and comprehensive as possible. </p> <p dir="ltr">But 12 months later the EU has, if anything, weakened its approach to regulate these uniquely harmful products. Chemicals lobbyists appear to be winning the battle. </p> <h3>Forever chemicals do not go away</h3> <p dir="ltr">The evidence is mounting about the problems caused by PFAS pollution, which is <a href="https://www.env-health.org/BanPFAS/#1679324305088-3249b7f2-079e">linked</a> to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, and hormone disruption. Young children, people who are pregnant, and older people are especially at risk.</p> <p dir="ltr">Recent stories have revealed PFAS contamination of our morning <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/12/high-levels-forever-chemical-tfa-everyday-cereal-products-all-across-europe">breakfast cereal</a>, our lunchtime piece of <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/reports/2024/02/toxic-harvest-rise-forever-pfas-pesticides-fruit-and-vegetables-europe">fruit</a>, and even our evening <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/04/study-reveals-alarming-surge-forever-chemical-tfa-european-wine">glass of wine</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr">High-level politicians are not exempt personally from PFAS contamination either. EU environment commissioner Jessika Roswall was among 24 European politicians who have <a href="https://chemsec.org/eu-leaders-contaminated-with-pfas-forever-chemicals/">tested positive</a> for PFAS in their bloodstream.</p> <p dir="ltr">The results of some individual studies, for instance on<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt"> plastics in human brains</a>, have been questioned by scientific peer reviews, but the broader findings remain unchallenged. </p> <p dir="ltr">It is clear that it is much safer to ban PFAS production and use, rather than let these forever chemicals loose in our bodies and the environment and to then try to deal with the consequences later. It is also much cheaper. The <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/">Forever Lobbying Project</a> revealed the €2 trillion costs of cleaning-up PFAS in the European environment over 20 years. </p> <p dir="ltr">Meanwhile, major investors <a href="https://chemsec.org/press-release-hazardous-chemicals-are-toxic-to-profits-investors-warn/">warn</a> that there is a dwindling economic logic in producing hazardous substances, rather than innovative, safer alternatives. </p> <p dir="ltr">But the EU’s PFAS ban remains a far-off hope and there are worrying indications that the regulators are looking to let the forever pollution industry off the hook.</p> <h3>Deregulation sweeping away PFAS ban?</h3> <p dir="ltr">A wave of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">deregulation</a> is sweeping through the EU capital. A political chainsaw is cutting down existing laws to protect health, the environment, and workers’ rights, while industry lobbies are receiving a warm welcome from decision-makers as they send in their <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">wish-lists</a> of rules which they would like to see dismantled. </p> <p dir="ltr">Also at risk are those rules which are still in the pipeline ‒ such as the proposed PFAS ban. </p> <p dir="ltr">There is now a serious risk that the PFAS ban will be substantially cut-back by the deregulation chainsaw. While the European Commission continues to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1755">emphasise</a> its commitment to tackling PFAS, its language around the scope of the proposed ban often emphasises ‘consumer uses’ such as cosmetics and waterproof clothing. A focus on consumer PFAS sounds like a good step, but could allow countless other, industrial sources of PFAS contamination to continue. </p> <p dir="ltr">The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), in preparing a vital opinion on the proposed PFAS ban, also seems to be weakening its scope: last year it <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/111425157/echa_update_pfas_en.pdf/6775e241-204e-af0a-a2d0-4c16ba2c138d#msdynmkt_trackingcontext=45f45125-14dc-453d-a6f1-ca4344910000">announced</a> it would exclude eight sectors of PFAS uses from its evaluation. This <a href="https://chemsec.org/echa-just-split-the-pfas-restriction-heres-why-its-a-disaster/">"disastrous"</a> decision must be seen in the context of intense <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">corporate lobby</a> demands for exemptions from a ban. </p> <p dir="ltr">Disappointingly, the five countries initiating the PFAS ban proposal are also <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-updated-pfas-restriction-proposal">diluting</a> their original proposal. It looks as if they may <a href="https://chemsec.org/pfas-restriction-proposal-5-red-flags-from-the-recent-update/">recommend</a> that production of PFAS can go ahead if emission control measures are in place. They have also clarified that European PFAS production for export should continue. </p> <p dir="ltr">All of these developments threaten to carve serious inroads into the PFAS ban as it was originally proposed.</p> <p dir="ltr">The PFAS corporate lobby should have been chastened by the revelations of the Forever Lobbying Project, especially its <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/the-disinformation-campaign/">findings</a> about how some in the industry have relied upon a cynical “disinformation campaign”. </p> <p dir="ltr">And decision-makers should have wised-up to the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">tactics</a> of the PFAS lobby and protected themselves from the corporate interests so determined to undermine public-interest law-making. But this has not happened.</p> <p dir="ltr">It is imperative that European politicians listen to the health, environmental, and economic arguments against PFAS and bring forward a comprehensive ban on forever chemicals as urgently as possible. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>This op ed was </em><a href="https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar4545905d"><em>published</em></a><em> by EU Observer. Recent op eds in other languages on this topic include:</em></p> <p><em>🇫🇷 </em><a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/10/31/pfas-l-interdiction-des-polluants-eternels-en-europe-reste-un-espoir-lointain_6650348_3232.html"><em>Le Monde</em></a><em> </em></p> <p><em>🇨🇿 </em><a href="https://denikreferendum.cz/clanek/238163-vecne-chemikalie-kdyz-lobbing-vitezi-nad-zdravim" id="homeLink"><em>Deník Referendum</em></a></p> <p><em>🇵🇹 </em><a href="https://www.publico.pt/2026/01/12/azul/opiniao/lobbying-eterno-industria-substancias-quimicas-eternas-2160484#"><em>PÚBLICO</em></a><em> </em></p> <p><em>🇫🇷 </em><a href="https://www.lesoir.be/729392/article/2026-02-17/les-entreprises-des-produits-chimiques-eternels-poursuivent-leur-lobbying"><em>Le Soir</em></a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction" hreflang="en">Chemical reaction</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">13.05.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban" hreflang="en">Persistent pollution</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Article by article, how Big Tech shaped the EU’s roll-back of digital rights</h1> <p>Bram Vranken — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-8d970413-7fff-a660-cab2-d5a54af12fbd" dir="ltr">In a new analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, we trace Big Tech's fingerprints on the Digital Omnibus proposals - a major deregulation of EU digital laws including the GDPR and the AI Act. They are helped in this attempt by the Trump administration and the European far right.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-baf45d50-7fff-fae2-9151-ff9c7515bb69" dir="ltr">At the end of November 2025, Ursula von der Leyen gave Trump and his tech oligarchs an early Christmas present: an unprecedented attack on digital rights. In its so-called Digital Omnibus, the European Commission proposed weakening important rules designed to protect us from Big Tech’s abuses of power.</p> <p dir="ltr">These are the protections that keep everyone's data safe, governments and companies accountable, protect people from having artificial intelligence (AI) systems decide their life opportunities, and ultimately keep our societies free from unchecked surveillance.</p> <p dir="ltr">At the same time, the Digital Omnibus is part of the European Commission's <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">deregulation agenda</a>, which threatens key social and environmental standards in Europe. Ironically this deregulation agenda is being promoted by the Commission as a way to make the EU 'competitive' – despite in reality actively empowering US Big Tech companies that dominate the field.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Digital Omnibus was immediately <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/digital-omnibus-eu-commission-wants-wreck-core-gdpr-principles">heavily</a> <a href="https://edri.org/our-work/europe-is-dismantling-its-digital-rights-from-within/">criticised</a> by <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/eu-digital-omnibus-proposals-will-tear-apart-accountability-on-digital-rights/">numerous</a> <a href="https://www.beuc.eu/press-release/eus-plan-simplify-digital-laws-benefit-mainly-large-companies-expense-consumers">civil</a> society organisations. <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-police-world-digital-tech-us-china-regulations/">Politico</a> even called it the end of the ‘Brussels effect’ – that is, that European tech regulations are adopted in other countries – and wrote that “Washington is [now] setting the pace on deregulation in Europe.”</p> <p dir="ltr">To show the extent of Big Tech’s influence on the Digital Omnibus, we compared the Commission’s proposals with the lobbying positions from Big Tech and its associations. </p> <p dir="ltr">The proposals in the Digital Omnibus concern both data protection and rules for AI. While the EU mistakenly speaks of benefits for European corporations, it is clear that weak digital rules strengthen the power of Google, Microsoft, Meta etc, thereby jeopardising the goal of becoming more independent from Big Tech and the US. </p> <p dir="ltr">In the past, Big Tech has repeatedly spread the one-sided lobbying message that data protection hinders economic growth and innovation, <a href="https://euneedsai.com/">especially</a> with regard to AI. This includes exceptions for SMEs and a fundamental focus on making <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/2f/ca/502331/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2503310295.pdf">more use of data</a> instead of protecting it.</p> <p dir="ltr">Tech companies are spreading these messages with a record-breaking lobbying budget, a huge lobbying network, and support from the Trump administration. The digital industry’s annual lobby spending has grown from <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">€113 million in 2023 to €151 million today</a> – an increase of 33.6 percent in just two years.</p> <p dir="ltr">Now, the European Commission appears to be bowing to this lobbying pressure and adopting key lobbying messages from Google, Microsoft, Meta and their many lobby organisations in its Digital Omnibus. </p> <p dir="ltr">Here we break down these industry lobbying messages, how they have been adopted by the Commission as proposed text changes, and what the real world impacts could be.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-8c742d9c-7fff-2d73-6bd2-abdc2b2f3b0b">How the Commission aims to weaken the GDPR and ePrivacy</h2> <p>The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the backbone of the EU’s digital rulebook. While the Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/speech_25_2732">claims</a> it is only giving the GDPR a “face-lift”, its proposed changes - from the definition of personal data to the use of data for training AI - will have far-reaching consequences to people’s rights, and will benefit Big Tech’s problematic business model based on massive data extraction.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-9e92ada9-7fff-22f1-9b6c-122a6665ff03">Limiting the definition of personal data </h3> <p dir="ltr">The Commission intends to stop classifying pseudonymised data (ie swapping out a user's identifiable name for a code or number) as personal data if a company claims it cannot identify a person, thereby exempting it from GDPR protection. This rule would also apply even when other actors ( for instance data brokers) can still identify individuals based on the pseudonymised data.</p> <p dir="ltr">As the digital rights organisations <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/digital-omnibus-eu-commission-wants-wreck-core-gdpr-principles">Noyb</a> and <a href="https://edri.org/our-work/commissions-digital-omnibus-is-a-major-rollback-of-eu-digital-protections/">EDRi</a> have pointed out, this change turns a universal rule into a subjective one. GDPR protections will only apply when a company has the means to identify a person based on the data it holds. This gives huge leeway to companies to decide not to apply the GDPR arguing that they can’t identify a person. Worse, data can be sold to other companies or data brokers that do have the means to re-identify individuals. </p> <p dir="ltr">But even if data is never sold or passed on to third parties, the proposed subjective approach would still severely narrow the scope of the GDPR. Big Tech companies such as Meta and Google for instance could use personal data for online tracking by claiming that the data cannot be traced back to a natural person and is therefore not covered by the GDPR.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr"> </p> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>Digital Omnibus</strong></dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed changed text to article 4(1) of the GDPR in the digital omnibus in italics:</strong> “Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates.</em></p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position </dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-faedc10c-7fff-a82e-6b7c-f7f0c86a1bc4" dir="ltr">This move closely reflects Big Tech's lobby position. The industry has long been calling for greater commercial use of personal data. The use of anonymous and pseudonymous data in particular would contribute to this.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong>, (which counts all Big Tech companies among its members), <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DigitalEurope%20lobby%20paper.pdf">wrote</a>: “Clarify that pseudonymised data is not personal data when recipients cannot reasonably re-identify individuals.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Microsoft Germany</strong> also <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/92/8d/322766/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406280060.pdf">lobbied</a> for weakening the definition along similar lines.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-20d6b5a7-7fff-42d2-a79e-520cb267b9e1">Limiting your right to access your own data </h3> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Summary: </strong>Currently, anyone can request a copy of their personal data from any company or organisation that holds it. However, the Commission intends to limit this right if a person ‘abuses’ it.</p> <p dir="ltr">This will severely limit the rights of individuals to know which of their data is being held by Big Tech. For instance, <a href="https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/post/historic-digital-rights-win-for-wie-and-the-adcu-over-uber-and-ola-at-amsterdam-court-of-appeal">in 2023 Uber and Ola drivers who were ‘robo-fired’ won a court case</a> against the company after it refused access to their work-related information. Ola tried to argue that the drivers requests for data amounted to an abuse of data protection rights, an excuse that the Commission now wants to give a legal basis.</p> <p dir="ltr">This will make it harder to hold Big Tech to account and to contest their unlawful practices. “The proposal threatens to dismantle a tool of counter-power”, as the academic René Mahieu <a href="https://verfassungsblog.de/digital-omnibus-right-of-access-to-personal-data/">writes</a>. </p> <p dir="ltr">Contrary to the claims made by industry, and adopted by the German Government, it is not citizens who have ‘abused’ their right to access their own data, but tech companies that have disregarded this right. According to the privacy organisation NOYB<a href="https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2025-12/noyb%20Digital%20Omnibus%20Report%20V1.pdf"> 90 percent of data access requests are not respected</a>. In one case, it took <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-win-youtube-ordered-honour-users-right-access">more than five years </a>for Youtube to respect a particular data access request.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed changed text to article 12(5) of the GDPR in the digital omnibus in italics: “</strong>Where requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of their repetitive character <em>or also, for requests under Article 15 because the data subject abuses the rights conferred by this regulation for purposes other than the protection of their data</em>, the controller may either: a) charge a reasonable fee [...] or refuse to act on the request.</p> <p dir="ltr">The controller shall bear the burden of demonstrating <em>that</em> the <em>request is</em> manifestly unfounded <em>or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is excessive</em>.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>Big Tech’s lobby position </strong></dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>The German Government lobbied for this change </strong>in an <a href="https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2025-11/German%20Proposal%20for%20simplification%20of%20the%20GDPR.pdf">influential but controversial position paper</a>. What has largely gone under the radar, however, is that these proposals were actually <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/pressemitteilung/digitalgipfel-weniger-datenschutz-mehr-macht-fuer-big-tech-123225/">pushed</a> by Big Tech companies.</p> <p dir="ltr">In a <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2510270013">lobby paper</a> dated 16 August 2025, <strong>Google</strong> called on the German Government to "Introduce a ‘disproportionate efforts’ exemption to compliance with Articles 15-22 GDPR". With regard to Article 12(5), Google proposed the following addition highlighted in bold: </p> <p dir="ltr">“Where requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of their repetitive character, <strong>or, taking into account the scope of the processing and the cost of implementation, where responding to the request would involve a disproportionate effort</strong>, the controller may either: (a) charge a reasonable fee taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or communication or taking the action requested; or (b) refuse to act on the request.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-0be98fd3-7fff-5dd0-ab4d-99f12b489c19"><strong>Using your personal data for training AI</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Generative AI models are being trained on enormous amounts of data. The Commission intends to permit the training of AI models with personal data, including highly sensitive data such as sexuality, political beliefs, or ethnicity, without active consent. People’s data will only be protected from being used for training AI models if they explicitly opt-out.</p> <p dir="ltr">Tech companies can basically hoover up any personal data on the internet to train their AI models without active consent (opt-out would still be possible). The protection of sensitive data for training AI such as political beliefs, union membership or sexuality is also weakened.</p> <p dir="ltr">There is a risk of ‘data leakage’ whereby AI systems reproduce the personal data it has been trained on or produce fake information. In one such case a journalist was<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/ai-artificial-intelligence-hallucinations-defamation-chatgpt/104518612"> falsely accused by a Microsoft chatbot of child abuse</a> when in fact he had just published articles on criminal court cases about it. The AI system, in essence a statistical programme, had conflated this information and had made him out to be a criminal.</p> <p dir="ltr">Major tech companies such as Meta, Google and X stand to benefit as they can train their AI models with massive troves of personal data collected through their platforms. </p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech companies are spending enormous amounts, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/31/big-tech-ai-spending-billions-microsoft-google-software-subscriptions.html">possibly as much as US$550 billion in 2026</a>, to dominate the AI market. Loosening rules on AI data collection plays directly into their hands.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-3b899312-7fff-49a3-e7a2-3628b41a1914" dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed text: </strong></p> <ul> <li dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus introduces a new article 88c in the GDPR introducing the use of personal data for AI training as a legitimate interest</strong>: <em>“Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller in the context of the development and operation of an AI system such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f)”</em><br> </li> <li dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus also waters down protections on using sensitive data for AI training by introducing article 9(5) to the GDPR</strong>:<em> “For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the controller identifies special categories of personal data in the datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall remove such data. If removal of those data requires disproportionate effort, the controller shall in any event effectively protect without undue delay such data from being used to produce outputs, from being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.”</em></li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-3eeab578-7fff-3789-9ae3-187d8abc0314" dir="ltr">This has been a top priority of Big Tech lobbying. Almost every trade association and company has lobbied both the Commission and member states on that topic.</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<strong> </strong><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “It is crucial to reaffirm the role of legitimate interest as a lawful basis under the GDPR for responsible AI innovation, moving beyond the non-binding EDPB opinion to provide harmonised legal certainty for AI training.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Reinforce the use of ‘legitimate interest’ as a ground to process personal data for key use cases such as product development – including of AI models – and security.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DOT%20Europe%20letter%20to%20Danish%20government.pdf"><strong> Dot Europe</strong></a> (in a lobby letter to the Danish Government): “GDPR Article 9 strictly limits the processing of special category data (e.g., race, ethnicity, health), posing challenges for AI development, particularly in healthcare. AI models need access to sensitive data to ensure accuracy, fairness, and cultural relevance.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-670509c7-7fff-9a7b-7fc9-3369e98f1371"><strong>Weakening rules on automated decision-making </strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Currently, automated systems cannot be used to make decisions with legal effect or for online profiling. A human must be in the loop. The Commission’s proposal is a structural shift from a general prohibition on automated decision-making but with a few narrow exceptions towards an authorisation regime where a company can employ automated decision-making whenever it thinks this is “necessary”.</p> <p dir="ltr">Important decisions including credit scoring, ‘robo-firings’, profiling, and welfare benefits could in the future be taken by automated decision-making without human intervention. This change will increasingly expose people to possibly flawed and biased algorithms which could make life-changing decisions, including if you get a loan or are fired from your job. Moreover these algorithms are generally black boxes, meaning it can be hard to uncover evidence of bias. Scandals in the <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-machines-dutch-child-benefit-scandal/">Netherlands</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66130105">Australia</a> already show how thousands of people can be wrongly targeted with devastating effects.</p> <p dir="ltr">In 2024, a subsidiary of the food delivery platform Glovo <a href="https://edri.org/our-work/italian-dpas-e5m-fine-against-glovo-marks-milestone-for-workers-rights/">was fined</a> €5 million by the Italian data protection authority under article 22 of the GDPR for violating workers' rights. The platform had used its rating system to automatically assign orders or ‘deactivate’ (read: ‘fire’) workers based on their ratings.</p> <p dir="ltr">While the drastic weakening of article 22 will benefit a range of different sectors, from the insurance and banking sector to gig economy companies, Big Tech is also set to profit. </p> <p dir="ltr">At the moment, social media giants employ thousands of underpaid workers to review harmful or illegal content on social media. This change will allow Big Tech companies to fully automate content moderation, cutting these costs essentially down to zero. Since the inauguration of Trump, Meta has<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/23/meta-hastily-changed-moderation-policy-with-little-regard-to-impact-says-oversight-board"> fired thousands of content moderators</a>. Amnesty International<a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/meta-new-policy-changes/"> has warned </a>that replacing content moderators with automated systems could amplify the most harmful content including content inciting racial hatred.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-5e95c669-7fff-85a3-b42e-c9abac657944" dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed text to Article 22 of the GDPR in italics</strong>: “<em>A decision which produces legal effects for a data subject or similarly significantly affects him or her may be based solely on automated processing, including profiling, only where that decision</em>: (a) is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller<em> regardless of whether the decision could be taken otherwise than by solely automated means</em>.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position </dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a08c610f-7fff-3c44-3663-0ddb62903a26" dir="ltr">While Big Tech companies have been complaining about the overlap between article 22 of the GDPR with the AI Act and the Platform Work Directive, it seems it was mainly insurance sector lobbying that was decisive in rolling back the protection on automated decision-making (Big Tech is however still set to benefit from this change). In 2023, the European Court of Justice<a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-634/21"> ruled in a landmark case </a>that credit scores based on profiling cannot be used by banks and insurance companies to decide on granting a loan or other financial products. The Digital Omnibus might now undermine that ruling. </p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088532_en"><strong>Insurance Europe</strong></a>: "Automated-decision making should be allowed as long as it is subject to safeguard mechanisms. To ensure that Art. 22 does not become an obstacle to the development of new digital solutions, it should be clarified that it is a right of the data subject and not an ex-ante prohibition."</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “The definitions of the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) ‘automated individual decision-making’ (Article 22), the AI Act’s ‘AI system’ (Article 3(1)), and the Platform Work Directive’s (PWD) for automated decision-making systems often overlap.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-7d6fe0e9-7fff-bd1c-753a-6bddaf70988d"><strong>Folding parts of ePrivacy into the GDPR</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Cookies are the backbone of the AdTech industry, used to trace our online activities in order to target us with personalised ads. Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive requires websites and apps to ask for prior consent before storing cookies. The Commission now wants to ‘fold’ parts of article 5(3) into the GDPR. This replaces a categorical, consent-based mechanism with a more flexible framework based on balancing and exceptions.</p> <p dir="ltr">Folding ePrivacy into the GDPR creates a more permissive system that allows companies to use exceptions to track behaviour. The <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2025/databroker-files-all-you-need-to-know-about-how-adtech-data-exposes-the-eu-to-espionage/">Databroker Files</a> demonstrated that commercial datasets which contain millions of locations could actually be used to spy on the public in Europe. These and other examples show the risks to our privacy are real: reporting shows how the vast trade in location data from smartphones can be traced back to individuals showing where they were at a specific time.</p> <p dir="ltr">It will allow them to do even more of what they already do: track you <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/10/france-fines-google-120m-and-amazon-42m-for-dropping-tracking-cookies-without-consent/">without your consent</a>. Big Tech firms have been <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/01/digging-into-googles-push-to-freeze-eprivacy/">lobbying for years against ePrivacy</a> as it could undermine their invasive business model based on surveillance ads. </p> <p>Several Big Tech firms have moreover <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/10/france-fines-google-120m-and-amazon-42m-for-dropping-tracking-cookies-without-consent/">faced fines </a>for tracking users without consent. This change might let these companies get away with their most problematic practices.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a1220957-7fff-28f4-8fce-45d6d0d0f6b0" dir="ltr"><strong>New text added to article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive in italics</strong>: “<em>This paragraph shall not apply if the subscriber or user is a natural person, and the information stored or accessed constitutes or leads to the processing of personal data.”</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>A new GDPR article 88a takes over instead which also introduces a series of exceptions to ask for consent</strong> including when “creating aggregated information about the usage of an online service to measure the audience of such a service, where it is carried out by the controller of that online service solely for its own use”.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-616d9873-7fff-185e-3391-0eaa46c03ead" dir="ltr">The telecom sector, publishers and the tech industry have lobbied for years against strong privacy protections as guaranteed by the ePrivacy directive. In 2018 a major Big Tech driven lobby campaign <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2018/06/shutting-down-eprivacy-lobby-bandwagon-targets-council">prevented</a> efforts to strengthen the ePrivacy Directive. A court document showed Google revealing that “we have been successful in slowing down and delaying the [ePrivacy Regulation] process and have been working behind the scenes hand in hand with the other companies.” The digital omnibus is another step in dismantling ePrivacy protections with all major players pushing for the changes as proposed by the Commission.</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088017_en"><strong>Google</strong></a>: “The most effective simplification is to delete Article 5(3) from the ePrivacy directive and govern all data processing related to cookies under the GDPR risk-based framework. Alternatively, a significant step toward simplification would be to amend Article 5(3) to extend the scope of permitted exemptions to allow specific, low-risk processing activities that are essential both for the functioning of a safe and sustainable digital ecosystem as well as for user experience. This would create clear exemptions for functions such as first-party audience measurement, ad frequency capping, and anti-fraud measures—allowing them to operate without generating unnecessary consent requests.” </p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Microsoft%20lobby%20paper%20data%20union%20strategy.pdf"><strong>Microsoft</strong></a><strong>:</strong> “The “cookie rule” in article 5 (3) eP[rivacy] D[irective] could be moved to the GDPR or, if kept in, rendered more flexible by allowing cookie placement without consent in a wider range of circumstances, e.g. for security, software updates, anti-fraud, and analytics.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-e42d9ba0-7fff-743a-578b-669027a52594"><strong>How the Commission aims to weaken the AI Act</strong></h2> <p dir="ltr">"Europe is open for AI and for business!" Ursula von der Leyen tweeted during the AI Action Summit in Paris. In its single-minded priority to “win the global AI race”, the Commission is slashing rules and protections against risky AI systems. A year-long <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">lobby campaign</a> by the Trump administration and Big Tech to delay the implementation of the AI Act has clearly paid off.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-f2d642be-7fff-e6de-2e0c-7fe036554457"><strong>No Checks and Balances for risky AI systems </strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">A controversial win for Big Tech firms during the AI Act negotiations was allowing companies to “self-assess” if they believe an AI system is high-risk. To compensate for that loophole, industry had to register these AI systems in a public database. Now this transparency failsafe will also be removed, basically giving tech companies a free hand in deciding if an AI system is risky without any public oversight. </p> <p dir="ltr">The risk to fundamental rights these high-risk AI systems pose are far from hypothetical. From<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54698858"> algorithmic-powered employee firings</a> to<a href="https://www.axios.com/2020/08/19/england-exams-algorithm-grading"> biased algorithms that disadvantage students</a> based on their socio-economic background, highly problematic AI systems are already in circulation. The AI Act lets companies self-assess if these AI systems are high-risk or not, and should therefore comply with requirements such as proper risk management, accuracy, and transparency.</p> <p dir="ltr">The digital omnibus will worsen an already huge loophole in the AI Act with potentially disastrous impacts on our rights.</p> <p dir="ltr">Not only can AI companies already self-assess if their AI systems are risky, the digital omnibus will remove any possibility of public oversight of that assessment, giving these companies a blank check to do as they please without any accountability mechanism.</p> <p dir="ltr">In<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7396855577064398849/"> a reaction on LinkedIn</a> Daniel Leufer from the NGO Access Now called this “the biggest, most ridiculous loophole in the AI Act that will let unscrupulous providers unilaterally exempt themselves from the AI Act's obligations with oversight”. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-aa943702-7fff-4db2-83eb-5cc135dae204" dir="ltr"><strong>Paragraph 2 of article 49 of the AI Act is deleted.</strong></p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-27e01355-7fff-f562-cfea-5cf2ab5716da" dir="ltr">The Commission’s proposals are completely in line with the lobby position of the two lobby organisations Dot Europe and DigitalEurope that count Big Tech members as its members. </p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Abolish the mandatory registration of AI systems, along with the related EU and Member State databases.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087422_en"><strong>Dot Europe</strong></a><strong>:</strong> “when a provider of AI systems provides concrete justifications that its AI system does not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons per Article 6(3), it should not be required to register its system in the high-risk AI database per Article 49.” </p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-6a019008-7fff-431e-f228-8639b04b8077"><strong>Delay in the implementation of the AI Act</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">The Commission intends to postpone the implementation of part of the AI Regulation by almost a year and a half. This means giving Big Tech more than 12 months to continue releasing potentially risky systems onto the market without any safeguards.</p> <p dir="ltr">This proposal would enable companies to continue to release risky AI systems for at least a year onto the market without any safeguards. Moreover, as the<a href="https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/CDT-Europe-Brief-Digital-Omnibus-Threatens-Hard-Won-AI-Safeguards.pdf"> Center for Democracy and Technology points out</a>, delaying the parts of the AI Act on high-risk AI systems, will also obstruct the ban of the most dangerous AI systems, leaving dangerous practices such as <a href="https://edri.org/our-work/emotion-misrecognition/">emotion recognition systems</a> and facial recognition AI used in public spaces on the market for longer.</p> <p dir="ltr">Delaying is<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/how-pesticide-lobby-sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur"> a tried and tested industry lobbying tactic</a>. It will give Big Tech more time to further water down the AI Act. Already, tech lobbyists are <a href="https://ccianet.org/news/2025/12/dont-let-digital-simplification-stall-eu-member-states-warned-by-tech-sector/">calling</a> for the further deregulation of the AI Act.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position </dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-b5a2e1d9-7fff-3947-9538-0a5ddb96be61" dir="ltr">A delay in the implementation of the AI Act is a central demand in a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">year-long tech lobby campaign</a> which was backed by the Trump administration.</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “The first priority should be to delay AI Act implementation until at least 12 months after relevant guidance, codes of practice, or technical standards become available.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Delay the application of high-risk AI requirements until at least 12 months after relevant harmonised standards are published, allowing sufficient time for adaptation.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33089184_en"><strong>Meta</strong></a><strong>: </strong>“It is critical to first pause the implementation and enforcement of the [AI Act]. This pause will provide the necessary time to undertake meaningful reforms without risking the EU falling behind in the global AI race. </p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-25437b55-7fff-a246-ab30-33677ccc0348"><strong>Using your sensitive data to train AI </strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">The AI Act under narrow circumstances allowed the use of sensitive data for mitigation of high-risk AI models to prevent bias and discrimination. This exception is now expanded to all AI systems based on the assessment of companies if the processing is necessary (see also above as part of the changes to the GDPR).</p> <p dir="ltr">This will allow intrusive gathering of your most sensitive personal data to train AI systems. Also see above “Using your personal data for training AI.</p> <p dir="ltr">While Big Tech claims that more data is necessary for detecting bias, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25003173">research</a> <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EDRi_Beyond-Debiasing-Report_Online.pdf">suggests</a> that debiasing - certain statistical techniques to ‘correct’ bias in databases that are used to train AI - is often ineffective and is unable to detect the many forms and contexts in which discrimination and bias manifests. Instead, it is a technical fix that enables Big Tech companies to collect yet more sensitive personal data to train their AI models while creating the illusion of ethical AI, all while encouraging the widespread adoption of AI across all sectors of society.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-14fc2415-7fff-f8e5-5791-dc9231e90f97" dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus introduces article 4(a) to the AI Act</strong>: “To the extent necessary to ensure bias detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems in accordance with Article 10 (2), points (f) and (g), of this Regulation, providers of such systems may exceptionally process special categories of personal data.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a8b18b69-7fff-bdab-e1e3-069b36e29e69" dir="ltr">The tech lobby constantly portrays data protection as a major obstacle to AI training and has therefore repeatedly lobbied, either specifically or in general terms, for the weakening of data protection. </p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088017_en"><strong>Google</strong></a>: “We propose extending the allowance in Article 10(5) to permit the necessary data processing for bias detection and correction across all AI systems and general purpose AI models. Extending this provision will provide a harmonized legal basis for developers to proactively build the fair, representative, and trustworthy AI that aligns with the EU’s core values and benefits all citizens. It will also reduce the risk of AI models and systems perpetuating or amplifying societal discrimination, irrespective of their specific AI Act risk classification.” </p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<strong> </strong><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087752_en"><strong>Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)</strong></a>: “The AI Act's Article 10(5) allowance for special categories of personal data processing for bias mitigation should be extended to the training of all AI systems and GPAI models, not just those classified as "high-risk.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-c7899791-7fff-10f8-e917-ea91e4494d4c"><strong>A Big Tech-far right alliance in the making?</strong></h2> <p dir="ltr">The Commission’s digital omnibus received widespread criticism. Civil society organisations, think tanks, experts, and political groups in the European Parliament from the left to the centre all perceived the Commission’s proposals as handouts to Big Tech and the Trump administration.</p> <p dir="ltr">But while the Social Democrats in the Parliament called the digital omnibus <a href="https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-dont-deregulate-and-weaken-eus-digital-legal-framework-protects-people">unacceptable deregulation</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-parliament-showdown-digital-red-tape-crusade/">far right parties</a> quickly came to the support of the Commission.</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobbying of the European Parliament also shifted in higher gear. Lobbying of the far-right seems to have become a particular priority for Meta, and to a lesser extent Google. While during the previous parliamentary mandate, Meta only met once with a far-right MEP, during this parliamentary mandate it has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/media/6519">already met 38 times </a>with MEPs from the ECR, the Patriots and the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. The digital omnibus is a key priority in those meetings. In the week of 8 December 2025, Meta met with four far right MEPs with most of those meetings mentioning the digital omnibus. </p> <p dir="ltr">Google has also not shied away from meeting far-right MEPs. A few days after the launch of the digital omnibus, the Head of Public Affairs of Google France <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DRfV_JpDdhf/?img_index=2">joined a dinner party</a> in Strasbourg hosted by six French MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Head of Public Affairs of Google France joined at a dinner party in Strasbourg hosted by six MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National.</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Souce: Instagram</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">Big Tech's lobbying strategy in the US, where it has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/dec/15/ai-trump-openai-google-data-centers">aligned</a> itself with the Trump administration, now appears to have been extended to the European Parliament.</p> <p dir="ltr">As outlined in this article, the digital omnibus is not just an unprecedented attack on our digital rights – it also closely mirrors Big Tech lobbying positions. The Commission’s deregulation agenda threatens to undermine years of progress in reining these tech giants and protecting our privacy. </p> <p dir="ltr">The emerging far right - Big Tech alliance in the European Parliament points towards an even more alarming trend. It should now be clear to all that the Commission’s deregulation agenda isn't just opening the door to Big Tech, it's inviting the far right in.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, this outcome is not inevitable. The European Parliament now has a crucial opportunity to stop this dangerous proposal and defend the hard-won data protection safeguards.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Digital Omnibus has received massive pushback, from civil society organsations, from within parliament and from member states, including Malta, which recently requested more time to scrutinise the proposal.</p> <p dir="ltr">What happens next depends on whether we manage to increase the pressure. </p> <p dir="ltr">Now is the time to make our voices heard and make it crystal clear to the European Parliament and national governments that they must stand up for our privacy, freedom of expression and democratic control over technology, and reject the Digital Omnibus.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry" hreflang="en">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>New analysis exposes deep influence of big tech on EU Commission’s roll-back of digital rights</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Tue, 13 Jan 2026 09:41:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">13.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 14 January 2026</strong> - Published last November, the Digital Omnibus represents an unprecedented rollback of people’s rights, with Big Tech’s fingerprints all over it. New analysis by lobby watchdogs Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl exposes the close alignment between the EU Commission's digital deregulation proposals and Big Tech’s lobby demands.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">Furthermore, Meta and Google are cosying up to far-right Members of the European Parliament, suggesting they see the far-right as an ally in rolling back key digital rights in Europe.</p> <p dir="ltr">An <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights ">article-by-article comparison</a> of the Digital Omnibus with lobbying papers from Google, Meta, Microsoft and their trade associations reveals that many of the most consequential changes to EU digital law reflect long-standing corporate priorities, including weaker data protection, fewer checks on artificial intelligence, and reduced public oversight.</p> <p dir="ltr">These changes would make it harder to hold powerful tech companies accountable, while exposing people to greater risks from surveillance, profiling, and automated decision-making. By weakening oversight and accountability mechanisms, the Digital Omnibus could create a regulatory environment that favours both corporate concentration of power and authoritarian political agendas.</p> <p dir="ltr">Worryingly, while the EU Commission is promoting this deregulation agenda to make the EU 'competitive', it is actually re-enforcing Big Tech’s monopoly power.</p> <p dir="ltr">Beyond the troubling proposals, CEO and LobbyControl also warn for a coalition between the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and far-right groups in the European Parliament to push through the Digital Omnibus. Big Tech lobbying strategies appear to be increasingly focused on engagement with far-right political actors. Meta and Google have both significantly increased meetings with far-right Members of the European Parliament in the current mandate, with deregulation of digital rules a central topic of discussion. </p> <p dir="ltr">Civil society organisations are calling on the European Parliament to halt the “bus” in its current form and reject any changes that chip away at hard-won digital rights – and democracy – under the guise of simplification. </p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</strong>, says: </p> <p dir="ltr">“There is an alarming overlap between the key changes proposed by the Digital Omnibus and Big Tech lobby positions. The Digital Omnibus is the biggest Christmas present Big Tech could have wished for.</p> <p dir="ltr">In its misguided quest for competitiveness, the Commission is sacrificing fundamental rights. It is now up to the Parliament to stop the Omnibus from wrecking our digital rights.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Felix Duffy, LobbyControl researcher and campaigner</strong>, says: </p> <p dir="ltr">“Weakening EU digital rules would favour both Big Tech concentration of power and authoritarian political agendas. At the same time, Meta and Google are actively aligning with far-right Members of the European Parliament to undermine these rules – a dangerous development. Especially now, when these rules are more important than ever to defend our democracy.”</p> <p dir="ltr"> ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="oenz/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 497 131464</p> <p dir="ltr">Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p dir="ltr">Fidélité Niwenshuti, LobbyControl press officer</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="cerffr/ng/yboolpbageby/qbg/qr" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +49 (0)30/ 4 67 26 72 11</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li dir="ltr">The full article-by-article analysis, “Article by article, how Big Tech Shaped the Commission’s Digital Deregulation Proposal”, is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">here</a>.<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights"> </a></li> <li dir="ltr">Article detailing Big Tech’s lobby campaign to influence the Digital Omnibus, and how the Commission has set up secretive meetings with industry from November: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry | Corporate Europe Observatory</a></li> <li dir="ltr">Update on the tech industry’s lobby firepower from October 2025: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels | Corporate Europe Observatory</a></li> </ul> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Pesticide lobby instrumentalising farmer protests in its attack on EU health regulations</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Sun, 14 Dec 2025 17:47:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides & GMOs</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>The pesticide lobby is opportunistically planning to use farmers’ protests, in order to create political momentum to slash EU safety rules for its products. But the free trade deal EU-Mercosur that is the focus of the farmers' ire, shows their interests and the lobbyists do not align.</em></p> <p>It’s getting increasingly harder for the pesticide lobby to argue against the science showing harm to people and ecosystems of its toxic products. So it is ramping up its tactics to sway EU decision-makers to its agenda. For example pesticide lobby group Croplife Europe appears to be opportunistically planning to use an upcoming farmer protest in Brussels in order to create political momentum to slash EU safety rules for its products.<em> </em></p> <p lang="en-US">Croplife Europe and its members Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, and Corteva are currently eyeing the European Commission’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/17%20steps%20towards%20a%20deregulation%20-%20a%20guide.pdf">‘simplification’ agenda</a> (another term for scrapping rules protecting people and our environment) as a golden opportunity to push back on pesticide safety evaluations. </p> <p lang="en-US"><em>See also op-eds:</em><br>Mediapart: <a href="https://blogs.mediapart.fr/nina-holland/blog/161225/le-lobby-des-pesticides-exploite-la-colere-des-agriculteurs">'Le lobby des pesticides exploite la colère des agriculteurs'</a><br>El Salto Diario:<a href="https://www.elsaltodiario.com/agrotoxicos/protestas-agricolas-presion-corporativa-plan-lobby-pesticidas-recortar-seguridad-ue"> 'Protestas agrícolas y presión corporativa: el plan del lobby de los pesticidas para recortar la seguridad'</a><br>Público: <a href="https://www.publico.pt/2025/12/15/azul/opiniao/lobby-pesticidas-usa-protestos-agricultores-pretexto-reduzir-normas-seguranca-ue-2158129">'Lobby dos pesticidas usa agricultores como pretexto para reduzir normas de segurança'</a></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US">This is just the latest in a trend by industry to gut safety rules for pesticides. For example, in 2021 Croplife Europe launched a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/03/loud-lobby-silent-spring">misleading campaign</a> to convince decision-makers, featuring flawed ‘impact studies’ scaremongering over threats to food security in order to undermine the pesticide reduction law SUR (see Box 2). The SUR – a flagship initiative of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy – was finally abolished in 2024.</p> <p lang="en-US">In its bid to slash regulations, Croplife sees the anger and frustration of farmers as a potential ace card up the sleeve. The 2023-2024 wave of farmer protests (see Box 1) resulted in the European Commission <a href="https://www.arc2020.eu/the-trojan-horse-of-simplification/">diluting a set of green rules</a> in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This year, Croplife Europe commissioned an IPSOS survey among farmers in nine EU countries. A launch event for <a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ipsos-for-Euronews-CropLife-Europe_Farmers-horizon_120525-FINAL.pdf">the survey report</a> was held in Brussels in May 2025 organised by Euronews in the presence of Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen. </p> <p lang="en-US">And farmers <a href="https://Farmers cite low purchase prices for agricultural products, soaring production costs, and competition from imports coming from third countries — including Ukraine and South American states — as the main reasons for their discontent. ">are indeed protesting again,</a> from Poland to Brussels, because of low prices for their products, and new threats: the EU-MERCOSUR free trade deal, and cuts in farm subsidies announced by Von der Leyen's Commission. Protests will culminate in big demonstrations on <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DSKf786DMGR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==">17 December in Liège</a> by La Via Campesina and on <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DSKf786DMGR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==">18 December by Copa-Cogeca</a> in the EU's capital.</p> <p lang="en-US">Croplife’s key question as highlighted in the IPSOS report is: “Have the farmers struggles in early 2024 been resolved by the EU recent actions or are farmers on the verge to protest again?”<em> </em>In <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/05/28/from-protest-to-progress-the-future-of-farming-in-europe">a Croplife-sponsored article </a>on the website of Euronews <span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content">The article went with the following disclaimer: “’<em>Partner Content presented by’ is used to describe brand content that is paid for and controlled by the advertiser rather than the Euronews editorial team. This content is produced by commercial departments and does not involve Euronews editorial staff or news journalists. The funding partner has control of the topics, content and final approval in collaboration with Euronews’ commercial production department."</em></span></span>, the survey is said to show that “over 50 per cent of farmers are pessimistic about their future, with many dissatisfied by the pace and direction of EU policy reform – so much so that over half are prepared to take to the streets again”. </p> <p lang="en-US">IPSOS researcher Nicolas Vogel told CEO that IPSOS took responsibility for writing the questionnaire, “ensuring it adhered to state-of-the-art practices”. He added that IPSOS also validated the data used in articles published on Euronews' website – content controlled by Croplife – “to ensure that the results were accurately preserved and communicated”.</p> <p lang="en-US">But what are farmers real concerns? Croplife’s communication regarding its IPSOS survey is strangely silent on what action the EU could take to stop unfair competition for farmers. The EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, strongly opposed by European farmers, is a case in point. This agreement <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/farmers-gear-up-for-brussels-protest-over-planned-cuts-in-eu-farm-policy-and-trade-deals/">is a key reason</a> why farmers are staging the protests in this week, just before Von der Leyen plans to take a plane to Brazil to sign the agreement on 19 December. </p> <p lang="en-US">However, EU-Mercosur is <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-powers-pushing-for-the-planet-wrecking-EU-Mercosur-deal.pdf">strongly supported by the pesticide industry</a>, as it will allow them to export more pesticides from the EU to South America, even when banned in the EU itself, while agricultural products produced with their pesticides can continue to be traded to the EU in large quantities. This belies the appearance that Croplife is trying to create – that its interests and those of the farmers are in perfect alignment.</p> <p lang="en-US">In a similar vein, Von der Leyen’s <a href="https://www.epp.eu/papers/european-farmers-deal">EPP party</a> has attempted to frame itself as a true defender of farmers' interests, yet her Commission is strongly pushing through the EU-Mercosur free trade deal. This deal would increase unfair competition for European farmers, as farmers in Brazil and other Mercosur countries do not have to respect the same food safety rules and have much lower production costs. </p> <p lang="en-US">At the same time, the Commission plan is to cut CAP subsidies in the near future, as part of the new multi-annual EU budget (MFF) plans backed by the EPP. This is the second reason that farmers are now hitting the streets, which has equally made the <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/socialists-challenge-epps-claim-to-be-the-eus-farmers-party/">EPP lose face</a> given its claim to be the political <a href="https://epp4farmers.eu/">party for farmers</a>.</p> <p lang="en-US">As if all this is not enough, a leaked draft Omnibus proposal has shown that the European Commission is considering another huge handout to the pesticides industry, which is to grant pesticides <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/11/eu-commission-proposes-unlimited-pesticide-approvals-science-abandoned">unlimited approvals</a>, instead of having renewal processes every 10 or 15 years. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US"><strong>Box 1: What were farmers protests about, and how did the EU respond?</strong><br>In late 2023 farmers' protests erupted in various EU countries, as a response to their economic situation. In both France and Germany, <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-do-the-eu-farmer-protests-relate-to-climate-change/">the direct causes were</a> plans by the respective governments to scrap fuel subsidies for farmers. Following the protests, various farmers' associations were quickly invited to discuss the issues with the European Commission. However the measures that were taken by the Commission did not sufficiently address farmers' economic concerns, but did weaken the CAP green rules. The European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) <a href="https://www.eurovia.org/press-releases/commission-proposals-must-go-further-to-ensure-fair-prices-for-farmers-and-a-cap-based-on-market-regulation/">criticised these steps</a>: “this will only accelerate the industrialisation of agriculture and its negative impact on farmers, society and the countryside”. ECVC instead called for market regulation and fair prices. ClientEarth and Birdlife Europe <a href="https://www.birdlife.org/news/2024/07/24/press-release-commissions-anti-democratic-cap-revision-escalated-to-eu-ombudsman/">submitted complaints</a> to the EU Ombudsman over this speedy CAP revision rolling back green measures, for bypassing democratic process. In November 2025, Ombudswoman <a href="https://www.birdlife.org/news/2025/11/27/eu-watchdog-slams-commissions-undemocratic-environmental-rollbacks/">Teresa Anjinho agreed</a> with these organisations that the Commission had committed maladministration, by bypassing any form of democratic process. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>IPSOS survey: scaremongering tool for industry?</strong><br><br>In spring 2025 Croplife Europe commissioned an IPSOS survey among farmers in nine EU countries. Nicolas Vogel, research associate manager at IPSOS, told Corporate Europe Observatory that the Croplife-sponsored study’s main objective was “to understand how farmers perceived actions from the EU institutions following the protests”. </p> <p>However, a closer look at the design of the survey and the communicated conclusions leaves no doubt that instead of understanding farmers, the goal rather seemed to be to scaremonger politicians using the new farmer protests. Without a doubt, it is in the interest of the pesticide industry to suggest to decision-makers that farmers <em>will </em>protest again, because this has already proven an effective policy pressure for deleting or diluting European regulatory safeguards protecting ecosystems and health. </p> <p lang="en-US">Kees Jansen, associate Professor in Rural Sociology at Wageningen University (WUR) who <a href="https://ruralsociologywageningen.nl/2025/11/12/why-eu-policymakers-should-not-rely-on-the-farmers-horizon-ipsos-report/">looked at the IPSOS report</a>, described it as “flawed in several fundamental aspects. Although it gives the impression of scientific rigour, methodological robustness, and representativeness, each of these aspects is, in fact, problematic”. He said that “the study appears to advance CropLife Europe’s agenda to paint EU environmental policies as outdated and subject to change”. <br><br>Firstly, the Croplife-sponsored IPSOS survey was conducted with nearly 2000 farmers across nine EU countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, and Romania. Jansen points out that the choice of these nine countries makes the overall survey outcome unrepresentative for the EU, despite the report’s claims. He says: “these are countries that had the relative larger farmer protests. Consequently, the study cannot credibly claim to be representative”.</p> <p lang="en-US">Secondly, the survey was pushed via a so-called ‘web intercept method’ – using online surveys that pop up on certain websites – and was spread via Facebook and Instagram. <a href="https://ruralsociologywageningen.nl/2025/11/12/why-eu-policymakers-should-not-rely-on-the-farmers-horizon-ipsos-report/">Professor Jansen</a> says “there are serious concerns about the suitability of a web intercept study, when investigating “complex questions of motivation and perception”. The IPSOS report does not specify which social media accounts, contacts or other websites were used to promote the survey, or how they were selected. This puts the representativeness of the survey sample in doubt. <br><br>Indeed it seems that farmers with big operations were much better represented in the survey sample than those with medium or smaller farms. Large farms generally have more interests aligned with the pesticide industry, due to their economies of scale, more standardised monoculture production, and dependencies such as investments in big machinery. Thus their positions are more likely to align with the pesticide industry’s.</p> <p lang="en-US">Notably, then, in all nine countries surveyed the average farm size of the respondent group was much higher than the national average. For instance the mean farm size of the French survey respondents is 167 hectares, 2.4 times the national average farm size (<a href="https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/france_en">69 hectares</a>). For the German respondents, the mean farm size for survey respondents is 433 hectares, which is 7 times the national average (<a href="https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/germany_en">61 hectares</a>). And for Romania, the respondents’ mean acreage is 188 hectares, up to 47 times the national average of <a href="https://www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/01/22/romania-still-counts-2.8-million-small-farms---largest-number-in-eu">4 hectares</a>. The overall mean farm size figure for the survey respondents is 267 hectares, while the real EU mean farm size is only <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farms_and_farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_statistics">17 hectares</a>. Professor Jansen says that this suggests “a major source of sampling bias, likely stemming from the websites on which this survey was advertised. This is an aspect the IPSOS report leaves unspecified.”<span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content">While the IPSOS report mentions weighting criteria including age, country, farm size and region, it is not specified how the gap between average farm size of the respondents and the national average was corrected.</span></span></p> <p>Adding to dramatic effect, the survey also asked about whether farmers plan to cease farming, which 22 per cent of respondents affirmed. The industry uses such claims to scaremonger about how rules threaten farmers' livelihoods, but ignores the complexity on the ground. As Professor Jansen explains, “farm closures are a long-term outcome of structural political-economic processes of economic pressure and scale enlargement in agriculture. Such developments cannot plausibly change within the one-year scope of the study”. </p> <p lang="en-US">Finally, national differences in context contributing to the reason why farmers started protesting (such as the scrapping of the tax break on diesel for farmers in Germany, or the inadequate assistance for Spanish farmers during a serious drought), are not taken into account in the report. <a href="https://ruralsociologywageningen.nl/2025/11/12/why-eu-policymakers-should-not-rely-on-the-farmers-horizon-ipsos-report/">Jansen says</a> that by leaving out these national contextual differences, “the study creates a misleading impression that EU policy alone is the primary cause of the protests”. This impression is even more misleading given that EU environmental policies like the SUR were never even implemented.</p> <p><strong>How aligned are farmers’ demands with those of pesticide corporations? </strong></p> <p lang="en-US"><a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ipsos-for-Euronews-CropLife-Europe_Farmers-horizon_120525-FINAL.pdf">IPSOS’ report</a> on the survey highlights that most farmers (82 per cent) want economic support from the EU, with farmers supporting things like fairer prices, access to subsidies or tax breaks (see p.53). But even though overall the category ‘Economic support’ got most backing from farmers, the IPSOS report nevertheless concludes that farmers number one priority for EU action is to ‘simplify administrative procedures’. This can be explained as it was a subcategory most often ticked by respondents (57 per cent). </p> <p lang="en-US">Interestingly, the questions one asks, and how one asks them, can dramatically change the message about farmers' needs and demands. When asked in a different way, a <a href="https://www.moreincommon.com/europe-talks-farming/">survey</a> held by the organisation More in Common among 1800 farmers in Poland, Spain, France, and Italy, showed most farmers (between 70 and 85 per cent) thought that the ecological transition is an opportunity or a necessity. </p> <p>Even though many more respondents (68 per cent) supported the statement that unfair competition from countries outside the EU had worsened since the 2023-2024 farmers' protests, IPSOS never translates this into a recommendation for policy action. In fact, it does not seem to be listed among the options for policy action that respondents could choose from. Apparently, there was no open question for EU action to take. IPSOS did not not reply to Corporate Europe Observatory's queries for an explanation about this omission.</p> <p lang="en-US">At the IPSOS launch event Commissioner Hansen did acknowledge that more needed to be done to stop less-regulated imports entering Europe: “Tackling this would have dual benefits: enabling better protection of environmental goals and creating fairer market conditions for farmers.” <br><br>But repeatedly the IPSOS survey avoids revealing where farmers' interests and the corporate lobby group's actually diverge. Croplife for instance <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/02/toxic-residues-through-back-door">strongly opposes this</a> prevention of imported food and feed with pesticide residues. As exposed by Corporate Europe Observatory, via a fierce lobby campaign running over 2017 and 2018, Croplife Europe (then called ECPA) and its members killed a previous initiative by the Commission to ban residues on imported food of hazardous pesticides banned in the EU. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US"><strong>Box 2: Misleading food security argument</strong><br>At the same time as next week’s planned farmers' protest, the Commission is also hosting the annual EU Agri-Food days in Brussels, a gathering attracting lobbyists and decision-makers. It is centred around <a href="https://news.thin-ink.net/p/the-fad-that-wont-die?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=265967&post_id=180715175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=l3fm5&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email">food security</a>, a deceptive term which was also at the core of Croplife’s lobby campaign against the SUR pesticide reduction plans. Croplife then commissioned a misleading ‘impact study’ from Wageningen University, scaremongering that this law would have negative impacts on food productivity and therefore food security. Wageningen University’s President Sjoukje Heimovaara later acknowledged publicly that this work <a href="https://www.wur.nl/en/news/dialogue-about-pitfalls-contract-research">was a mistake</a>: “WUR academics attended a lobby meeting and collaborated on a lobbying publication. That should not have happened because it does, at the very least, create the appearance of a conflict of interest.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Commission’s hand-outs for industry, harm public health</strong></p> <p lang="en-US">In the same week as new farmer protests hit Brussels, the Commission is expected to publish yet another Omnibus proposal (a bundle of changes to existing laws), this time on food and feed safety laws. The most shocking proposal is to scrap pesticide renewal assessments, which is the review that all pesticides have to pass every 10-15 years. Without such renewal assessments, as <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/11/eu-commission-proposes-unlimited-pesticide-approvals-science-abandoned">PAN-Europe points out</a> highly hazardous pesticides like chlorpyrifos and mancozeb, as well as bee-killing neonicotinoids, would still be used in Europe. Renewal assessments are a cornerstone of the EU pesticide legislation and stem from the logic that new scientific findings on health effects of approved pesticides have to be taken into account. Indeed, scrapping such renewal assessments is the best way for corporations like Bayer to avoid new scandals such as those that occurred over the <a href="https://stopglyphosate.eu/">glyphosate re-approval</a>. </p> <p lang="en-US">Unsurprisingly, in 2025 the pesticide industry has been having <a href="https://www.integritywatch.eu/">numerous meetings</a> with the cabinets of Commissioners Várhelyi (Health), Dombrovskis (Simplification), and Hansen (Agriculture) under the topics of 'simplification', agri-food or pesticide policies. Croplife EU and Bayer both had at least eight such meetings, BASF five and Dow had two.</p> <p lang="en-US">An industry lobby letter signed by 24 corporate lobby groups, from Croplife Europe to the feed industry FEFAC, to the Big Food companies combined within FoodDrinkEurope, <a href="https://euroseeds.eu/app/uploads/2025/11/Industry-letter-to-EC-on-urgent-action-for-efficient-risk-assessment_FINAL_18-11-2025-1.pdf">called</a> on the European Commission to “balance” the science on food safety with “strategic policy priorities”, to allow industry experts back into EFSA panels, and even to review the Transparency Regulation, a law won by large pan-European citizen action on glyphosate, including court cases, that made all safety studies done by industry fully public. Industry is clearly keen to go back to the secrecy which served it so well in the past. </p> <p lang="en-US">But science is not on their side. Wageningen University, that helped Croplife’s lobby campaign to kill the pesticide reduction law SUR with a flawed ‘impact study’ has <a href="https://www.wur.nl/en/news/dialogue-about-pitfalls-contract-research">acknowledged this was a mistake</a>. And the key study underpinning the claim that glyphosate would not cause cancer – known for a decade to have been ghostwritten by Monsanto – has <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2025/12/04/glyphosate-safety-article-retracted-elsevier-monsanto-ghostwriting/">finally been retracted</a> by the science journal that published it.</p> <p lang="en-US">Meanwhile, on 19 December, <a href="https://www.arc2020.eu/the-future-of-seeds-the-power-play-between-patents-and-new-gmos/">EU countries are set to vote</a> on yet another law that will act to the detriment of both farmers and plant breeding companies, <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">after over a decade of lobby</a> from big corporations. New GM foods will be allowed on to the market without any credible protection against corporations patenting those GM crops. The European Parliament has asked for a ban on these patents, as well as mandatory labelling of GM food for consumers, but the EPP rapporteur Jessica Polfjärd has <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20613-deregulation-of-genetic-engineering-parliament-s-mandate-at-risk-of-being-disregarded#:~:text=In%20the%20run%2Dup%20to%20the%20final%20negotiations,on%20the%20hotly%20debated%20issue%20of%20patents.">not defended either of these demands</a>. Corporations are even applying <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/pr-report-2025">native plant traits</a> in their patents. This is another example of corporations weakening the socio-economic position and independence of farmers, who are increasingly becoming the underpaid subcontractors of global agribusiness. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US"><strong>Box 3: History of farmer co-optation by pesticide industry</strong><br>Whether it is the lobby battle over controversial pesticide glyphosate, or neonicotinoids implicated in the collapse of bee populations, the pesticide industry likes to use the ‘voice of farmers’ to boost legitimacy for its own agenda. Big farming lobby group Copa-Cogeca likes to appear as a faithful ally, despite the fact that it is farmers and their families who are the first to be exposed to pesticides’ health harms.</p> <p lang="en-US">Copa-Cogeca was part of the panel at the IPSOS report launch, and it was with this group that Croplife Europe coordinated its attacks on the food and farming elements of the EU Green Deal. </p> <p lang="en-US">There are many more examples of pesticides lobbyists weaponising farmers' grievances. Emma Brown, currently Director of public affairs at Croplife Europe, previously <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/emma-brown-she-her-54140256/">worked</a> at lobby consultancy Red Flag from 2016 to 2022. During this time Red Flag was hired by Monsanto to stage a fake grassroots farmers' campaign to support glyphosate. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2019/09/fleishmanhillards-secret-lobby-campaign-monsanto">The 'Freedom to Farm' campaign</a> organised stands at agricultural shows across Europe and recruited farmers to help lobby for glyphosate. Red Flag was set up by a former partner of lobby firm Hume Brophy (now part of Penta), which coordinated the industry-run Glyphosate Task Force, later renamed the Glyphosate Renewal Group, during the last two glyphosate re-approvals.<span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk"> </span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content">Monsanto first ran the group. After Bayer bought Monsanto it also took over the group’s leadership in 2018.</span></span></p> <p lang="en-US">It should be stressed that Copa-Cogeca is not the only farmers' voice in Brussels, and definitely does not represent all European farmers as they claim. A <a href="https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/europes-potemkin-lobby/">Lighthouse Reports’ investigation</a> cast serious doubt on the lobby’s membership strength and legitimacy in the farming community: ‘’Smaller scale and younger farmers in particular said they do not feel represented by Copa-Cogeca”, Arūnas Svitojus, the president of a Copa-Cogeca affiliated union from Lithuania, told them.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US"><strong>Conclusion: what will really help farmers</strong> </p> <p lang="en-US">It is a disturbing reality: pesticide lobbyists in the EU quarter these days are working overtime to further dilute safety assessments in order to maintain profits for their clients. Meanwhile the sector’s own customers – farmers and their families – bear the risks linked to these products with their bodies. For example, farmers' pesticides exposure is <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/factsheets/FRI-24-F3-health%20fac-2.pdf">linked</a> to a higher risk for health issues such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease.</p> <p lang="en-US">And the European Commission – it cannot be said otherwise – appears complicit.</p> <p lang="en-US">It also appears to be ignoring just how costly the pesticide model is to society. We have the figures: the costs to taxpayers directly attributable to pesticide use (for health costs, cleaning up our drinking water etc) <a href="https://basic.coop/en/actualites/study/pesticides-a-model-thats-costing-us-dearly/">according to Le Basic</a> added up to around €2.3 billion in 2017. This is twice as much as the net profits made by the pesticide industry. </p> <p lang="en-US">The cuts in farm subsidies and the EU-MERCOSUR trade deal are the key reasons why farmers are taking to the streets this week. While Copa-Cogeca might add calls for 'less bureaucracy' to that, the European Coordination of La Via Campesina (ECVC) <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DSKf786DMGR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==">explicitly adds</a> "No to Deregulation of pesticides, GMOs, deforestation rules,.." to their demands.</p> <p lang="en-US">According to Leonardo van den Berg, committee member of ECVC, “the pesticide industry is abusing misleading studies and farmers’ protests to pretend it speaks for farmers. It doesn’t. Our problems will not be solved by deregulating pesticides — reducing their use is part of the solution. But farmers cannot do this alone: we need real support to transition to agroecology. What farmers need is not more chemicals, but fair prices, an end to the EU–Mercosur trade deal, and strong market regulation.” </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Revealed: Pesticide lobby instrumentalises farmers protests in its attack on EU health regulations</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:35:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 15 December 2025 </strong>- As Brussels prepares for a week dominated by agricultural politics, including a major farmer protest on 18 December, and key announcements from the European Commission, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/pesticide-lobby-instrumentalising-farmer-protests-its-attack-eu-health-regulations-0">new research</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory reveals how the pesticide industry sought to exploit farmer unrest to dismantle EU pesticide protections.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In spring 2025, CropLife Europe sponsored a farmer survey conducted by Ipsos to generate political support for significantly weakening EU pesticide regulations. The survey was <a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ipsos-for-Euronews-CropLife-Europe_Farmers-horizon_120525-FINAL.pdf">launched</a> at a Brussels event organised by Euronews, attended by Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen.</p> <p>However, the Ipsos survey is methodologically flawed with a bias towards large-scale farms, despite its claims to representativeness. The conclusions ignored a key concern of farmers, particularly regarding unfair competition and the EU-Mercosur agreement, prompting experts to warn that the study serves CropLife Europe's lobbying agenda rather than providing a credible picture of farmer sentiment.</p> <p><strong>Kees Jansen, associate Professor in Rural Sociology at Wageningen University (WUR)</strong>,<strong> </strong>who<a href="https://ruralsociologywageningen.nl/2025/11/12/why-eu-policymakers-should-not-rely-on-the-farmers-horizon-ipsos-report/"> looked at the IPSOS report</a>, called the IPSOS survey “<em>flawed in several fundamental aspects. Although it gives the impression of scientific rigour, methodological robustness, and representativeness, each of these aspects is, in fact, problematic.”</em> He said that <em>“the study appears to advance CropLife Europe’s agenda to paint EU environmental policies as outdated and subject to change</em>”. </p> <p>Worryingly, the survey formed part of a broader industry strategy aimed at influencing EU pesticide policy. During this period, CropLife Europe, Bayer, BASF and Dow held numerous meetings with the cabinets of Commissioners Várhelyi (Health), Dombrovskis (Simplification) and Hansen (Agriculture). They pushed for regulatory 'simplification' and invoked 'food security' to justify deregulation.</p> <p>Other key findings from Corporate Europe Observatory’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/pesticide-lobby-instrumentalising-farmer-protests-its-attack-eu-health-regulations-0">new report</a> include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Scrapping pesticide renewal assessments: </strong>This lobbying push coincides with the Commission’s expected publication of the food and feed Omnibus proposal, which, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/exclusive-commission-plans-indefinite-approval-for-most-pesticide-substances/">according to a leaked draft</a>, could include the alarming proposal <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/11/eu-commission-proposes-unlimited-pesticide-approvals-science-abandoned">to abolish pesticide renewal assessments</a>, the periodic scientific review every 10–15 years that ensures harmful substances are removed from the market. As PAN-Europe has pointed out, without renewal assessments, highly hazardous pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, mancozeb and bee-killing neonicotinoids would likely still be in use today. This will be harmful to food security in the long run.</li> <li><strong>Industry shaping EU-Mercosur debate: </strong>The pesticide <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-powers-pushing-for-the-planet-wrecking-EU-Mercosur-deal.pdf">industry strongly supports the EU-Mercosur deal</a>, which would enable companies to export more pesticides, including banned substances, to South America. Meanwhile, agricultural products grown using these pesticides would continue to enter the EU market. This agreement <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/farmers-gear-up-for-brussels-protest-over-planned-cuts-in-eu-farm-policy-and-trade-deals/">is a key issue for farmers</a> protesting on 18 December, yet it is not among the IPSOS survey report’s recommended policy priorities.</li> <li><strong>Food security narrative dominates as protests hit Brussels: </strong>Next week, amid ongoing farmer protests, the Commission is set to host the annual EU Agri-Food Days, a high-profile event bringing together lobbyists and policymakers to discuss the concept of <a href="https://news.thin-ink.net/p/the-fad-that-wont-die?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=265967&post_id=180715175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=l3fm5&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email">'food security'</a>. This narrative has been pivotal in the pesticide industry's campaign against the Farm to Fork initiative's now-abandoned pesticide reduction targets.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, </strong>says: <em>“Despite the pesticide industry’s opportunistic attempts to use farmers’ anger to further push political momentum for the scrapping of health regulations, this week’s farmer protest in will show the big divide in interests. Farmers demand a decent income; therefore, say no to the EU-MERCOSUR deal. They would not oppose the ecological transition if they were compensated for it. Bayer and BASF, however, want farmers to compete on the world market to the bottom prices, with the lowest possible health standards, to the detriment of all.” </em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 466 294420</p> <p><strong> </strong>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p> <a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>You can read the full report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/pesticide-lobby-instrumentalising-farmer-protests-its-attack-eu-health-regulations-0">here</a>.</li> <li>Croplife then commissioned a misleading ‘impact study’ from Wageningen University, scaremongering that this law would have negative impacts on food productivity and, therefore, food security. Wageningen University’s President Sjoukje Heimovaara later acknowledged publicly that this <a href="https://www.wur.nl/en/news/dialogue-about-pitfalls-contract-research">was a mistake</a>: “WUR academics attended a lobby meeting and collaborated on a lobbying publication. That should not have happened because it does, at the very least, create the appearance of a conflict of interest.”</li> </ul> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Behind the scenes: The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</h1> <p>Joana — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 20:48:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New episode of EU Watchdog Radio </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Check out our new podcast episode to get all the tea behind the making of our new documentary "The scramble for hydrogen for South Africa".</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In this episode, Joana and Pascoe, co-directors of Corporate Europe Observatory's new documentary "<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/hydrogen-film">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a>" talk about the process behind the making of the film. It's a more relaxed and informal episode than usual, where you can get to know the whole truth behind the making of the film, and how you can host your very own screening!</p> <p>If you want to take action on this topic, sign the petition demanding the EU to scrap its green hydrogen import targets <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/gh2-petition">here</a>. You can also watch the whole documentary <a href="https://youtu.be/z_5oDnzwarY">here</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Who we are</strong></h3> <p>This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech & chemical companies, the financial sector & public investment banks, trade, energy & climate, scientific research and much more…</p> <p>You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen" hreflang="en">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/our-new-film-out-scramble-hydrogen-south-africa" hreflang="en">Our new film is out: The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Blog</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/blog/EU-watchdog-radio" hreflang="en">EU Watchdog Radio</a></div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>The climate needs a fair, fast and funded fossil fuel phase-out, so why did EU governments roll out the red carpet for the oil and gas industry at COP30?</h1> <p>Pascoe Sabido — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:30:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/un-climate-talks" hreflang="en">UN climate talks</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Photo credit: David Tong, OCI</em></p> <p>There was genuine hope that this year’s UN climate talks in Brazil could deliver a <a href="https://350.org/press-release/350-org-reaction-analysis-presidency-text-opens-the-fight-for-a-fossil-fuel-phase-out-at-cop30/">roadmap towards a fossil fuel phase-out</a>. The science is unequivocal; we need to keep coal oil and gas in the ground to stop runaway climate change. The EU’s earth observation programme, Copernicus, just <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/12/09/temperature-average-for-2023-2025-on-track-to-exceed-15c-for-first-time-copernicus-data-re?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=a4d63f36e2-nature-briefing-daily-20251209&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-33f35e09ea-50298256">announced</a> that average temperatures are set to surpass 1.5<sup>o</sup>c for 2023-2025, the first time this has happened over a three year period. Breaching 1.5 is a death sentence for many Pacific islands through rising sea levels.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>However, when the gavel came down on COP30, even African negotiators were <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/11/14/__trashed-2/">rejecting</a> the phase-out as it came with no provision of finance or technology to make it happen. Nor was there evidence that rich countries, those historically most responsible for climate change, would lead the phase-out. In fact, the EU and its oil and gas companies have been at the <a href="https://www.iisd.org/articles/press-release/europe-dash-gas-africa-puts-private-profits-first">forefront</a> of the dash for gas in Africa and elsewhere. A doubt persists: was the hollowness of the roadmap, as well as the protestations from many of those governments backing it, intrinsically linked to the influence of the coal, oil and gas industry over decision-making at the UN and national capitals?</p> <blockquote><p>The fact that there are more fossil fuel delegates at COP30 than negotiators from the ten most climate vulnerable nations combined is a slap in the face, and a glaring conflict of interest.</p> </blockquote> <p>The fossil fuel lobbyists arrived in Belém in full force, more than 1,600 of them according to <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flood-cop30-climate-talks-brazil-largest-ever-attendance-share">research</a> by Kick Big Polluters Out. With one in every 25 COP30 attendees lobbying for dirty energy interests, they significantly outnumbered every country delegation bar Brazil. It's long past time for a firewall between these lobbyists trying to defend their business model at all costs, and climate decision-makers. We’ve <a href="https://theecologist.org/2024/mar/01/fossil-free-climate-conferences">done it</a> to the tobacco industry; the fossil fuel industry must be next.</p> <h3><strong>Glaring conflict of interest</strong></h3> <p>As extreme weather is turbo-charged by emissions, with the true cost in human lives <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03669-2?WT.ec_id=NATURE">vastly undercounted</a>, the fossil fuel industry is still betting on the continued extraction and combustion of the very thing causing ever-worse floods, droughts, and fires, and the very we need to phase out. The <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163716">financial cost</a> over the last decade are US$2.3 trillion.</p> <p>The fact that there are more fossil fuel delegates at COP30 than negotiators from the ten most climate vulnerable nations combined is a slap in the face, and a glaring conflict of interest. The past two years have seen <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP30-next-steps-KBPOhttps:/kickbigpollutersout.org/COP30-next-steps-KBPO">small steps</a> in addressing this conflict, but they have been limited to voluntary transparency measures such as declaring industry ties or that your participation aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, the latter doesn’t extend to those on government delegations, which means the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flood-cop30-climate-talks-brazil-largest-ever-attendance-share">almost 600 </a>fossil fuel lobbyists who entered the talks this way skipped the meagre measures completely.</p> <h3><strong>Vip access on government delegations</strong></h3> <p>Being accredited on a government delegation gets you access to places out of bounds for civil society, namely the negotiating rooms and government-only offices and meeting rooms – perfect for a quiet word from anyone with a vested interest in stopping a fossil fuel phase-out. Research by Fossil Free Politics and Kick Big Polluters Out reveals that EU Member States together accredited <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/news/eu-brings-84-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-to-cop/">more than 80 fossil fuel lobbyists</a> on their delegations.</p> <h3><strong>French revisionism</strong></h3> <p>The worst offender was France, bringing in 22 lobbyists including Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of oil and gas major TotalEnergies, as well as four of his colleagues. The company’s new LNG export project in Mozambique has been mired in human rights abuses, with a Dutch court <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-report-massacre-totalenergies-gas-project-mozambique-human-rights/">recently finding</a> that soldiers in its pay had carried out a massacre of local villagers. The company is facing accusations of alleged war crimes. 30 years on from Shell’s execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine, the reality of fossil fuel exploitation remains as brutal as ever.</p> <p>Entering COP30 on the French delegation, TotalEnergies staff did not have to declare if their goals were aligned with the Paris Agreement – luckily, as the multinational was recently <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/historic-win-against-greenwashing-as-court-rules-totalenergies-misled-consumers-on-net-zero/">found guilty</a> of misleading consumers by wrongly presenting itself as a major player in the energy transition. However, when confronted with this evidence at COP30 by Greenpeace, Pouyanné <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7395182668763525120/">denied</a> both the French court ruling and the accusation of being a lobbyist.</p> <h3><strong>Italian serial offenders</strong></h3> <p>Italy, a <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/news/europe-brings-gas-lobbyists-to-cop29-to-strike-deals/">serial offender</a> in granting access to the oil and gas lobby, brought 12 fossil fuel lobbyists this year, while <a href="https://www.recommon.org/la-lobby-fossile-fa-il-record-di-presenze-alla-cop30-in-brasile-recommon-belem-assediata-dai-giganti-delloilgas/">five other</a> Italian fossil fuel lobbyists entered without government help. Among them was Head of Sustainability at energy utility Edison, one Italy’s key importers of US liquified natural gas (LNG). The build out of LNG processing and exporting sites has had a <a href="https://oilchange.org/blogs/exposing-how-lng-terminals-in-the-us-are-permitted-to-kill/">devastating impact</a> on the health and livelihoods of the surrounding local communities.</p> <p>Less noticed was Alessandro Costa, there under the guise of the Venice Sustainability Foundation (a front group for Italian oil and gas), keen to promote more climate- and community-wrecking gas and hydrogen pipelines. What he didn’t declare is that he actually <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alessandro-costa-a9b78b3/?originalSubdomain=it">works for Snam</a>, the Italian gas transmission system operator, a tactic that two of his colleagues <a href="https://www.recommon.org/en/the-italian-fossil-fuel-lobby-present-in-force-at-the-cop29-in-baku-recommon-eni-and-its-fellows-do-business-not-save-the-planet/">used last year</a> to enter the talks (almost) unnoticed. </p> <h3><strong>EU climate reputation in tatters?</strong></h3> <p>The European Union arrived in Belém with its reputation as a climate leader in tatters, thanks to a weak 2040 climate target <a href="https://www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/press-release-a-climate-law-for-polluters-confirmed">riddled with loopholes</a>, including international carbon offsets and a regular “competitiveness” review to ensure it’s not overly impacting polluters’ profits. Add to that the high number of European fossil fuel lobbyists at the talks, particularly on national delegations (Sweden and Denmark also brought 30 between them), and it is no wonder that many countries are no longer listening to EU lectures on climate action and fossil fuel phase-outs. </p> <p>However, the European Commission tried to rescue some of its lost credibility: for a second year running, it brought zero fossil fuel lobbyists to the UN talks. This is partly thanks to the Fossil Free Politics campaign, which has been <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/news/112-orgs-tell-hoekstra-not-to-bring-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-to-cop29/">pushing</a> EU Commissioner Hoekstra to do so for the past two years. They argue the fossil fuel industry should be treated the same way as the tobacco industry, with a <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/news/support-the-firewall-against-the-fossil-fuel-lobby/">firewall</a> implemented between their lobbyists and decision makers. This would mean Hoekstra and the EU turning their positive action into effective policy, banning fossil fuel lobbyists from EU delegations and pushing Member States to do the same. This would boost the <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/articles/release-groups-representing-millions-have-message-those-un-climate-talks-bonn">growing demands</a> for a conflict of interest mechanism to protect the talks from vested interests.</p> <p>In Belém, the EU and its Member States got behind the weak proposal for a fossil fuel phase out that was neither fast, fair, nor funded. But if they are serious about a phase-out, there are concrete actions to take: for a start, attending the first <a href="https://fossilfueltreaty.org/first-international-conference">International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels</a>, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands and taking place in April. But a real phase out requires them cutting ties with the oil and gas industry and sidelining their vested interests – something they have so far been unwilling to do. While international pledges are important, the true test will be how this develops in national capitals. </p> <p>Currently, the influence of the fossil fuel industry and its allies in Brussels is growing by the day, thanks to the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">increased political support and access</a> under Commission President von der Leyen. This trend must reverse, for all of those who live in and around extraction, processing and distribution sites, for those already losing their homes, livelihoods and lives to extreme weather and rising seas and for all of us who share this earth.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Take action against food & feed Omnibus: Stand up for pesticide safeguards</h1> <p>Nina Holland — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 10:02:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Food and feed omnibus, another corporate handout </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides & GMOs</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>On 16 December the European Commission will publish yet another Omnibus proposal, on food and feed safety. A leaked version showed a horrific plan: to abandon pesticide renewal assessments, allowing toxic pesticides eternal approval. This is no less than a corporate handout, which will go at cost of our health and environment. Take action now!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>A leaked draft of a 'Food and Feed Omnibus' proposal revealed that the European Commission plans for a shocking lowering of safety standards: to scrap the mandatory safety review for pesticides.</p> <p>What does this mean? A lifetime approval for toxic pesticides, without a regular moment to re-assess the risks. Without these renewal evaluations, many toxic pesticides like Mancozeb or Chlorpyrifos would still be used in the EU today.</p> <p>On Wednesday 10 December, a meeting is scheduled in which all Commissioners join, and decide on the proposal that will come out on 16 December. </p> <p>Take action now, and tell Commissioners that harmful pesticides should not stay on the market indefinitely, that independent scientific research should not be ignored, and that pesticide approvals should be improved, not weakened. This plan would take us back many years, but it still can be changed! </p> <p><strong>Take action: choose a message and adapt it as you like. Then spread the word. Thank you.</strong></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><script src="//widget.proca.app/d/end_the_toxic_pesticide_age/en" async></script></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Our new film is out: The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</h1> <p>Joana — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 16:06:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> A documentary on how frontline communities are impacted by the EU’s green extractivism </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/gas-lobby" hreflang="en">Gas lobby</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Our new documentary has now been officially released - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_5oDnzwarY">watch it on-line</a> or <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/hydrogen-film#block-ceo8-film2025mobi">host a screening</a> near you.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU wants to import vast quantities of green hydrogen from around the world to decarbonise its economy. Made from renewable electricity, it’s presented as the latest silver bullet to solve the climate crisis, but the voices of those impacted by the projects have been completely absent from decision-making.</p> <p>Our new documentary reveals the impact of the EU’s scramble for hydrogen in South Africa on the lives and livelihoods of local communities, and raises the voices of those fighting back. It asks some important questions: Who pays the cost and who benefits from the EU’s green extractivist plans? What should the just transition really look like – not just in Europe but globally? And What does this mean for Europe’s current green ambitions?</p> <p>The film is now freely available on youtube (below) with subtitles in EN, FR, ES, PT, DE, NL, IT and AR (<a href="#" data-mail-to="fpenzoyr/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">contact us</a> if you would like to have additional subtitles). </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We were lucky enough to premiere it at a local cinema in Brussels, followed by a great panel discussion, as well as online, with activists and campaigners fighting green hydrogen and extractivist projects in South Africa (see below).</p> <p>If you would like to put on a screening in your own community, we would love to support you, and have created a materials pack to make it easier for you. Please register <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/hydrogen-film#block-ceo8-film2025mobi">here.</a></p> <p>The reality facing communities fighting green hydrogen in South Africa is the same across the world, but their reality is not being taken into account by European decision makers. That's why <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/tell-eu-no-green-hydrogen-imports">more than 130 organisations</a> called on the EU to scrap its green hydrogen import plans (your organisation can <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf0zyKmkxjw9Wmqn7-6QBnoe1AI9VOTVlCq8nkIz6ZXR2iJ2g/viewform?usp=preview">still sign here</a>), and also why we have launched a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/gh2-petition">petition</a> calling for the same thing. We hope you will sign it after watching the film.</p> <p>You can also see the trailer, below</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>European Premiere - 27th November</h2> <p>Co-hosted with <a href="https://lavamedia.be/fr/">Lava Revue</a>, the documentary was shown on<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/event/4"><strong> 27th November at Cinema Vendôme, Brussels</strong></a>. The 30 minute screening was followed by a debate with Project manager for climate, energy and trade at Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Alexandra Gerasimcikova; Expert in power systems, distributed generation and energy access, Irene Calve Saborit; and Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, Pascoe Sabido.</p> <h2>Global On-line Premiere - 3rd December</h2> <p>The global online premiere was followed by a live Q&A with South African Environmental justice activists Fatima Vally (<a href="https://macua.org.za/">Mining Affected Communities United in Action, MACUA</a>), Neville van Rooy (<a href="https://thegreenconnection.org.za/">The Green Connection</a>) and Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, Pascoe Sabido.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="meta-origin">Want to know more?</h2> <p>Read our full report "The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa" <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen">here</a>. Touted by Europe as a silver bullet to decarbonise its economy, the scramble for green hydrogen is driving a new global gold rush — with South Africa cast as a key supplier. It promises to turn energy from the wind and sun into a fuel that when burnt, produces nothing but water vapour, a fuel that could replace oil and gas, a fuel that could drive a clean industrial transformation in the global south. But behind the promise of jobs and low-carbon development lies a more sinister story. </p> <p>Green hydrogen demands enormous quantities of fresh water. In South Africa’s driest regions, local people already struggle with scarcity. New hydrogen plants risk draining the water needed for life – drinking, farming and nature itself. Affected communities were never properly informed or consulted. Many only found out once permits were signed. Fisherfolk, farmers and indigenous peoples are being pushed aside – their rights ignored, their voices dismissed. Europe’s hydrogen push follows an old pattern: foreign corporations profit while local people bear the costs. </p> <p>This timely documentary follows researchers from lobby watchdog NGO Corporate Europe Observatory, as they trace the EU’s hydrogen ambitions from decision-makers in Brussels to South African communities at the heart of planned mega-projects. The story begins in the Northern Cape, a few kilometres below the border with Namibia, where fishing communities fear that new hydrogen plants and ports along South Africa’s coast will harm marine ecosystems and endanger their livelihoods. Part of the land earmarked for development belongs to the indigenous Nama community, who have only just won it back through the courts, but face being pushed off it once more for a mega hydrogen complex. </p> <p>On the other side of the country, on the border between the Gauteng and Free State provinces, communities in the Vaal Triangle are confronting the other face of green hydrogen: how the same fossil fuel companies that have been polluting their air, land and water since the apartheid era are now using it to greenwash their dirty practices and continue with business as usual. But communities in South Africa have a long history of struggling for justice. Despite having their voices ignored so far by Europe’s politicians, they are fighting for their rights and resisting a hydrogen agenda that has been developed in the interest of European companies. </p> <p>What do they have to say about it and what consequences will it have for them? — and what should a just energy transition really look like? Join us to watch the film and find out!</p> <p> </p> <h2>Trailers</h2> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen" hreflang="en">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/scramble-hydrogen-south-africa-boegoebaai" hreflang="en">The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - Boegoebaai</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/scramble-hydrogen-south-africa-vaal-triangle" hreflang="en">The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - The Vaal Triangle</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Big Polluters have captured €17 billion in public subsidies for failed carbon capture technology – because fossil fuel lobbyists are setting the agenda</h1> <p>Rachel Tansey — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 05:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 4 December 2025</strong> – On 8-9 December, the European Commission and its oil company co-host HEREMA will hold the fifth Industrial Carbon Management (ICM) Forum in Athens. As the EU gears up for its annual meeting on carbon capture, new research by Oil Change International and Corporate Europe Observatory<sup>1</sup> shows that carbon capture and storage (CCS) has received €17.3 billion in public subsidies from the EU, its member states, and Norway.<sup>2</sup></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-0198c92b-7fff-7162-36b7-c9be8c362e64" dir="ltr">Carbon capture seeks to capture CO2 emissions from sites of pollution and either store them underground or repurpose them. However, CCS has a decades-long history of overpromising and under-delivering, at great expense.<sup>3</sup> <br><br>The ICM Forum has been dominated and steered by the fossil fuel industry, and has shaped EU policy and directed public money towards CCS as a way to lock-in fossil fuels.<sup>4</sup> This year’s co-host HEREMA aims to expand oil and gas production, and is facing local resistance over its controversial Prinos CCS site.</p> <p dir="ltr">ICM Forum working groups influence EU policy by publishing recommendations to the Commission – all are led by fossil fuel industry actors. In the past year, this included six co-chairs and two editors (amongst them Equinor and Shell); these eight fossil fuel entities spend nearly €20 million per year lobbying the EU. </p> <p dir="ltr">Major fossil fuel companies active in the ICM Forum benefit from public subsidies to CCS. Equinor, which co-chairs one forum working group, is involved in projects that have received €2.7 billion in public funds, while Shell, co-editor of the same working group’s recent report, is involved in projects that have received about €5 billion.</p> <p dir="ltr">Myriam Douo, senior campaigner at Oil Change International says “CCS is risky, costly and has failed to deliver for decades. It primarily serves to enable polluting industries to continue business as usual while pocketing subsidies. That’s why fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing for CCS – and the European Commission is recklessly embracing it. But it’s not too late, the EU can still change course and prioritise real solutions to climate change, like energy efficiency and renewables, as part of a just transition away from fossil fuels.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Rachel Tansey, researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory says “Europe is showering public money on a dangerous distraction designed to keep Big Oil and Gas in business. Why? Because it is listening to their lobbyists. Rejecting fossil fuel influence is vital if the EU is to deliver real solutions to the climate crisis instead of delay tactics like carbon capture.”</p> <p dir="ltr">ENDS</p> <p id="docs-internal-guid-4c14370b-7fff-25cb-c224-eeab7fd3fd17" dir="ltr"><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Bonnie Barclay, Oil Change International, <a href="#" data-mail-to="obaavr/ng/bvypunatr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +1 323 363 4874</p> <p dir="ltr">Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory, <a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Notes to the editor:</strong></p> <p>[1] <a href="https://oilchange.org/publications/mapping-the-money-behind-carbon-capture-public-subsidies-and-industry-ties ">Mapping the money behind carbon capture: Public subsidies and industry ties</a>, co-published by Oil Change International, Corporate Europe Observatory, ReCommon, Fossil Free Politics, and Real Zero Europe.</p> <p>[2] The data covers CCS projects and fossil-based hydrogen projects that plan to utilize CCS. For access to Oil Change International's database of CCS and fossil hydrogen subsidies, please email: <a href="#" data-mail-to="erfrnepu/ng/bvypunatr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> <p>[3] - 88% of CCS projects fail, according to a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02104-0">2024 article in Nature</a>. <br>- <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd19e/pdf">90% of planned CSS projects in the power sector were never built</a>, according to a 2021 article in Environmental Research. <br>- CCS may be “highly economically damaging,” and <a href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/heavy-dependence-carbon-capture-and-storage-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report">cost at least USD 30 trillion more than a pathway based primarily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electrification</a>, according to a report from Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. <br>- CCS can also enable and worsen harm to communities already burdened by fossil fuel infrastructure with <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/19-CCS-DAC.pdf">increased</a> air pollution, according to an Energy and Environmental Science paper. <br>- No CCS project has ever reached its target CO2 capture rate, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis,<a href="https://ieefa.org/ccs"> and no existing project has consistently captured more than 80% of carbon</a>.<br>- CCS gives the industry a justification to <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend-oil-production-by-84-years-industry-study-finds/">continue developing new fossil-based projects for many years</a>, reinforcing reliance on fossil fuels.</p> <p>[4] For more information on the ICM Forum (formerly ‘CCUS Forum’) see Corporate Europe Observatory (2024) <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup">The Carbon Coup</a> and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited">The Carbon Coup revisited</a>.</p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/mapping-money-behind-carbon-capture" hreflang="en">Mapping the money behind carbon capture</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.04.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup" hreflang="en">The Carbon Coup</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.10.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited" hreflang="en">The Carbon Coup revisited </a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Mapping the money behind carbon capture</h1> <p>Rachel Tansey — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 05:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Public subsidies and industry ties </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>On December 8 and 9 in Athens, the European Commission will host its Industrial Carbon Management (ICM) <a href="https://energy.ec.europa.eu/events/5th-industrial-carbon-management-forum-2025-12-08_en">Forum</a>—an annual event <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup">dominated by fossil fuel lobbyists</a> pushing to expand Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Despite decades of investment, CCS has repeatedly failed to cut emissions, yet the Commission continues channelling billions to a technology that prolongs polluting industries like oil, gas, plastics, and chemicals. This is a significant financial return on the fossil fuel industry’s lobby spending.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>European public subsidies for CCS have reached over <strong>€</strong>17 billion </h3> <p>Data compiled by Oil Change International (OCI)<sup>a</sup> shows the EU, its member states, and Norway have committed nearly <strong>€</strong>17.3 billion in public money since 2001 to CCS projects and fossil based hydrogen projects that plan to utilize CCS. </p> <p>The EU’s subsidies for CCS have soared in the past two years. After committing around €3 billion between 2001 and 2023, this figure has more than doubled to over €6.2 billion by late 2025. Member states, including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, have added €6.1 billion. Norway - central to Europe’s CCS plans and <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex:52024DC0062">Industrial Carbon Management Strategy (ICMS)</a>, despite being outside the EU - has spent €5 billion on CCS. </p> <p>Major fossil fuel companies <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited">active in the ICM Forum</a> are poised to benefit from these public subsidies. Available data does not make clear how much each has received. However, Equinor, which <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/75b4ad48-262d-455d-997a-7d5b1f4cf69c/library/c5cd0d90-d0a6-4fc6-b259-ad7124f83a22/details?download=true">co-chairs</a> a forum working group, is involved in 14 projects that have received €2.7 billion in public funds, while Shell, co-editor of the same working group’s most recent report, is involved in 12 projects that have received about €5 billion. 70% of the subsidies OCI has tracked are committed to projects still in the planning stage, many of which are moving slowly. </p> <p>For example, the Kairos@C project, which <a href="https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/if_pf_2022_kairos_en.pdf">secured</a> €360 million from the EU, is at a <a href="https://www.industrylinqs.com/chemicals/2025/03/basf-antwerp-delays-ccs-project-again-no-multi-billion-investment-without-government-backing/">standstill</a> because “the business case isn’t yet viable”, and chemicals giant BASF has delayed a final investment decision. Norway’s flagship project, the heavily subsidised Northern Lights, is still in early operation and lacking transport <a href="https://www.ftm.eu/articles/norway-carbon-capture-landmark-project">capacity</a> for the 5 million tons of storage it envisages in its second phase. This casts serious doubt on Norway’s vision of a booming CO2 import market. Even with billions in public money, CCS is failing. It is capital-intensive, risky, infrastructure-heavy, and in <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abbd02">many</a> cases less <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/carbon-capture-will-not-play-major-role-steel-decarbonisation-report-says-2024-04-17/">effective</a> than electrification and energy efficiency. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>The fossil fuel industry is behind the push for CCS</h3> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has exposed how the European Commission’s ICM Forum (formerly the ‘CCUS Forum’) is<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup"> dominated and steered by</a> fossil fuel industry lobbyists. Its working groups produce recommendations for the Commission, effectively inviting the fossil fuel industry to shape EU policy. The Commission’s subsequent strategy (the ICMS) <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup">closely mirrors</a> these recommendations. </p> <p>The <a href="https://energy.ec.europa.eu/events/5th-industrial-carbon-management-forum-2025-12-08_en">5th forum</a> in Athens is co-hosted by HEREMA, a Greek state-owned oil company with an <a href="https://gr.linkedin.com/company/herema">explicit goal</a> of increasing oil and gas production.<sup>b</sup> HEREMA’s CO2 storage project in Prinos, Thassos, is facing <a href="https://co2-syntonistiki-thassos.com/en/ccs-prinos/#anker13">strong local resistance</a> due to <a href="https://co2-syntonistiki-thassos.com/en/ccs-prinos/#anker12a">risks of</a> CO2 leakage, groundwater pollution, and earthquakes. </p> <p>Since last year’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited">ICM Forum in Pau, France</a>, all four working groups mandated to help implement the ICMS <a href="https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/carbon-management-and-fossil-fuels/industrial-carbon-management/icm-forum-and-working-groups_en">have published recommendations</a>. Each group had fossil fuel industry co-chairs and/or report editors, including Equinor, the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP), and six others (see Figure 2).<sup>c</sup> These eight fossil fuel groups alone spend nearly €20 million a year lobbying Brussels<sup>d</sup> - and the Commission is listening to them. </p> <p>The IOGP-led infrastructure working group most recently <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/75b4ad48-262d-455d-997a-7d5b1f4cf69c/library/4c7c08d8-92b9-4804-8385-7231332f7327/details?download=true">urged the EU</a> to “simplify” and “speed up” approval for CO2 infrastructure. Since then, the Commission has acted on this through the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-iv-hydrogen-carbon-capture">Clean Industrial Deal</a> and other upcoming laws, deregulating planning processes in a way that could jeopardise vital environmental and social protections.<sup>e</sup> Expanding CO2 infrastructure poses a <a href="https://www.ciel.org/issue/carbon-capture-and-storage/">massive danger</a> to local communities and their health, while diverting attention from urgent climate action and locking in dependence on fossil fuels. We need to <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/">cut fossil fuel interests out of politics</a> – not invite them to write policy.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>CCS is more expensive and less effective than alternatives and proven to fail </h3> <p>A <a href="https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/IEEFA%20Carbon%20capture%20and%20storage-Europe%27s%20climate%20gamble.pdf">report</a> from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) calls the EU’s CCS plans “too complex, too expensive, and too late” for net-zero goals, with costs to the taxpayer of around €140 billion. The IPCC ranks CCS among the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/">least effective</a> emissions reduction methods, and an <a href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/heavy-dependence-carbon-capture-and-storage-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report">Oxford study</a> finds high-CCS pathways could cost $30 trillion more globally than renewable alternatives. </p> <p>CCS is not only costly but technically challenging, with a 50-year record of failure. Even with $83 billion invested since the 90s, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152100416X?via%3Dihub">nearly 80% of large-scale projects fail</a>, and only <a href="https://www.ogci.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CSRC_Cycle_4_Main-Report_August_2024.pdf">52Mt of carbon dioxide have ever been stored</a> long-term. This highlights the unlikeliness of achieving the EU’s stated goal of storing 280Mt CO2 per year by 2040. </p> <p>Despite decades of overpromising and under delivering, CCS backers still push the technology and lobby for more public funding. At COP30 in Brazil, <a href="https://www.ciel.org/news/531-carbon-capture-and-storage-lobbyists-gained-access-to-cop30-climate-talks/">531 CCS lobbyists</a> gained access to the UN climate talks—showing just how hard the industry works to sell its fairytale. Industry has been promising CCS is about to take off for decades, when the reality shows failure after failure; meanwhile, despite its naysayers, wind and solar capacity have soared. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Fossil free politics needed for real zero emissions </h3> <p>Europe is showering public money on a dangerous distraction designed to keep Big Oil and Gas in business. Why? Because it is listening to their lobbyists. <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/">Rejecting fossil fuel influence is vital</a> if the EU is to deliver <a href="https://www.realzeroeurope.org/">real solutions to the climate crisis</a> instead of fossil fuel industry delay tactics like CCS. </p> <ul> <li>No more public money to CCS.</li> <li>No more corporate capture by the fossil fuel industry.</li> <li>No more ICM Forum.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><hr> <p><sup>a Oil Change International database of CCS and fossil hydrogen subsidies. For database access please email: <a href="#" data-mail-to="erfrnepu/ng/bvypunatr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></sup></p> <p><sup>b Hellenic Hydrocarbons and Energy Resources Management Company (Herema) </sup><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/herema/about/"><sup>describes</sup></a><sup> its activities as including “active promotion of Greece as an attractive oil and gas destination to international investors”, </sup><a href="https://herema.gr/upstream-oil-gas-exploration/"><sup>as well as</sup></a><sup> “spearheading the development of Greece’s offshore and onshore oil and gas resources” worth “upwards of ¤1250 billion”. </sup></p> <p><sup>c The </sup><a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/75b4ad48-262d-455d-997a-7d5b1f4cf69c/library/c5cd0d90-d0a6-4fc6-b259-ad7124f83a22/details?download=true"><sup>paper published</sup></a><sup> in March 2025 by the working group on CO2 standards thanks representatives of Shell and Zero Emissions Platform (whose </sup><a href="https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/membership/"><sup>members include</sup></a><sup> Eni, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell Equinor, TotalEnergies, etc) “for editing sections of the report”. </sup></p> <p><sup>d Data available on request.</sup></p> <p><sup>e E.g. The </sup><a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-plan-for-europe-s-sustainable-prosperity-and-competitiveness/file-industrial-decarbonisation-accelerator-act"><sup>Industrial Accelerator Act</sup></a><sup>, the </sup><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14672-European-grid-package_en"><sup>European Grids Package</sup></a><sup>, an upcoming law on </sup><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14804-Legislative-initiative-on-CO2-transportation-infrastructure-and-markets_en"><sup>CO2 transportation infrastructure and markets</sup></a><sup>, etc</sup></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/big-polluters-have-captured-eu17-billion-public-subsidies-failed-carbon-capture-technology" hreflang="en">Big Polluters have captured €17 billion in public subsidies for failed carbon capture technology – because fossil fuel lobbyists are setting the agenda</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.04.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/carboncoup" hreflang="en">The Carbon Coup</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.10.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/CarbonCoupRevisited" hreflang="en">The Carbon Coup revisited </a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mapping_Money_Factsheet_Final.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>“EU Toxics: Return to Sender”</h1> <p>Hans Van Schaaren — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:53:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Citizens deliver banned EU pesticides back to Brussels </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">02.12.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-243f5c33-7fff-b12b-0008-c2ecb0208ea2" dir="ltr">Civil society groups from around the world have come together today to denounce the European Union’s toxic double standards. In a symbolic action in front of the European Commission in Brussels, campaigners returned 75 boxes - one for each pesticide active substance banned for use in the EU but still massively exported abroad.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-aa78c061-7fff-1596-764a-7cac40fc6995" dir="ltr">The action was organised by the End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition, who represents over <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/Letters/Banned%20pesticides_ENG_FINAL.pdf">600 organisations</a> asking for an end to this toxic trade. [1] It follows a recent research by Public Eye and Unearthed, revealing that in 2024 alone, the EU exported almost 120,000 tonnes of pesticides containing these 75 hazardous substances that are too toxic to be sold or used within Europe due to their serious health and environmental risks. The figures show that this toxic business is growing, despite the Commission's pledge to put an end to it. [2]</p> <p dir="ltr">The majority of these chemicals are exported to Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) with weaker protection laws. This EU double standard poses a threat to human rights. At the same time, the EU imports food grown using these substances, leading to exposure of EU consumers via residues in imported foods and also putting EU farmers in an unfair competition.</p> <p dir="ltr">In 2020, the European Commission made a promise that the EU would “lead by example” and ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the EU would not be produced anymore for export. “Five years have passed and we’re still waiting, while companies keep exporting these banned and hazardous chemicals to countries with weaker protection laws,” said Angeliki Lysimachou, spokesperson of the End Toxic Pesticides Trade Coalition.</p> <p dir="ltr">“If these pesticides are too dangerous for Europeans, they are too dangerous for everyone,” said the coalition’s spokesperson. “The EU cannot continue to profit from poisoning communities and ecosystems elsewhere”, concluded.</p> <p dir="ltr">In the days leading up to the action, organisations from 13 countries across five continents recorded themselves packing bottles of these EU-banned pesticides into boxes destined for the European Commission - as a global act of resistance against Europe’s harmful export practices. </p> <p dir="ltr">Each of the 75 boxes bears the name of a banned but still exported pesticide and is addressed to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, marked “Return to Sender.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition has carried out several actions to call for an urgent stop to these exports. In late June, we launched a Joint Statement in Brussels - co-signed by more than 600 organisations worldwide - calling for an immediate end to these unethical double standards. [3] </p> <p dir="ltr">ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Notes: </p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Find here the photos from the action: </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UTG_ITtFgfVfH1wznDtTSTzPaMp1hXaM?usp=sharing"><strong>https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UTG_ITtFgfVfH1wznDtTSTzPaMp1hXaM?usp=sharing</strong></a><strong> </strong></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Watch the preview video</strong>: people from around the world sending back the banned substances: <a href="https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/50466029-f292-4389-8a64-597a2ab4753a"><strong>https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/50466029-f292-4389-8a64-597a2ab4753a</strong></a><strong> </strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Return to Sender campaign: <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/return-sender-videos-campaign">https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/return-sender-videos-campaign</a></p> <p id="docs-internal-guid-faa6471f-7fff-cbcd-d040-2709c2c05993" dir="ltr">[1] The End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition (in alphabetical order): ActionAid France, Broederlijk Delen, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Child Rights International Network (CRIN), Dreikönig- saktion der Katholischen Jungschar (DKA Austria), Ekō, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme (FNH), Foodwatch, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace EU, Humundi, Le CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V. (PAN Germany), Public Eye, Slow Food, Veblen Institute for Economic Reforms.<br>[2] Report by Public Eye and Unearthed, <a href="https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics/pesticides/sharp-rise-in-eu-export-trade-in-banned-pesticides-despite-european-commission-promises">here</a>. Interactive map <a href="https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics/pesticides/weltkarte">here</a></p> <p dir="ltr">[3] Find the Joint Statement in EN, FR, SP, Ger, PT, NL, IT and Danish <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/06/double-standards-violate-human-rights">here</a></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>More than 130 groups call on EU to scrap green hydrogen import targets</h1> <p>Gail — Thu, 27 Nov 2025 06:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> As the EU signs a new green hydrogen deal with South Africa, groups call out the devastating impacts of the bloc’s neocolonial import plans. </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">27.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 27 November 2025 -</strong> A week after the EU signed its first Clean Trade and Investment Partnership with South Africa, focusing on green hydrogen and critical minerals, 134 civil society organisations from across the globe are calling on the EU and its Member States to scrap their neocolonial green hydrogen import plans.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="meta-origin">The EU intends to import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 from countries like South Africa, Chile, and Namibia. However, in an <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/tell-eu-no-green-hydrogen-imports">open letter released today</a>, groups warn that the plan replicates the injustices of the fossil fuel era, sacrificing communities in the Global South for Europe’s decarbonisation goals.</p> <p>According to the letter, the EU's scramble for hydrogen will have devastating consequences for communities wherever it takes place. Large-scale, export-oriented hydrogen projects require vast amounts of land and water, leading to widespread land and water grabbing, often without the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities.</p> <p><strong>Yegeshni Moodley, Climate and Energy Campaigner at groundWork and one of the co-authors of the open letter, said:</strong></p> <p><em>"Europe’s hydrogen plans reek of green colonialism, offering little tangible benefit to host countries like South Africa, robbing communities of their available resources to transition to clean, safe energy."</em></p> <p>These impacts are laid out in a new documentary by Corporate Europe Observatory, premiering in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11253&qid=1836527">Brussels on 27 November</a>, which features interviews with South African communities on the front lines of proposed hydrogen projects.</p> <p>While the EU talks about green hydrogen made from renewable electricity, campaigners also fear that it is a Trojan horse for hydrogen made from fossil fuels, as there will not be enough green electricity to make hydrogen and decarbonise the economy.</p> <p><strong>Pascoe Sabido, Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory and one of the co-authors of the open letter, said:</strong></p> <p><em>"The EU wants to import vast quantities of green hydrogen to decarbonise its own economy, but it has utterly ignored the voices of those directly impacted by the projects. It needs to scrap its unrealistic plans and start listening to frontline communities rather than the hydrogen lobby, which is little more than the fossil fuel industry in disguise."</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory Researcher and Campaigner</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11254&qid=1836527">pascoe@corporateeurope.org</a>, +44 7969 665 189</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory Press Officer</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11255&qid=1836527">marcella@corporateeurope.org</a>, +32 489 62 22 33</p> <p>Yegeshni Moodley, groundWork Climate and Energy Campaigner</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11256&qid=1836527">yegeshni@groundwork.org.za</a>, +27 72 714 1170</p> <p>Tsepang Molefe, groundWork Media Campaigner</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11257&qid=1836527">media@groundwork.org.za</a>, +27 74 405 1257</p> <p><em>Interviews with campaigners and communities on the ground can be arranged on demand.</em></p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <p>[1] The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/tell-eu-no-green-hydrogen-imports">open letter</a>, sent by 120 groups, calls on the EU to: 1. Scrap the target of 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen imports by 2030 and meet climate goals through domestic action and a rapid fossil fuel phase-out; 2. End all public subsidies and financial support for green hydrogen import infrastructure and export-oriented production projects abroad; 3. Support countries in the Global South with their own just transitions, funded by the polluters who caused the climate crisis and rooted in local energy democracy.</p> <p>[2] On 20 November, the EU signed its first “<a href="https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-south-africa-sign-first-ever-clean-trade-and-investment-partnership-ctip-2025-11-20_en">Clean Trade and Investment Partnership</a>” with South Africa on the sidelines of the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11260&qid=1836527">G20 in Johannesburg</a>. The fast-track trade deal is the first agreement of its kind and was designed <a href="https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/988b75dc-2207-453e-808e-af941c2b944d/details?open=true">explicitly</a> for Europe to get access to the country’s green hydrogen. There have been <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11262&qid=1836527">ongoing technical discussions</a> between both sides since its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11263&qid=1836527">announcement</a> in March 2025.</p> <p>[3] The letter was initiated by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Counter Balance, groundWork South Africa (Friends of the Earth South Africa), Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (ODG), ReCommon and the Transnational Institute (TNI).</p> <p>[4] To register for the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11253&qid=1836527">European premiere</a> of “The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa” on 27 November at 19h00, or to have advanced access to an embargoed online version of the documentary, please contact <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11264&qid=1836527">media@corporateeurope.org.</a></p> <p>[5] For more information on the impacts of green hydrogen on communities in South Africa, see CEO’s recent report, The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11265&qid=1836527">here</a>. Find a list of quotes and testimonies from affected communities taken from the film <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Scramble%20for%20Hydrogen%20in%20South%20Africa%20-%20extra%20quotes.pdf">here</a>.</p> <p>[6] Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) is a non-profit research and campaign group working to expose the power of corporate lobbying in the EU.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen" hreflang="en">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/12/eu-scramble-hydrogen-have-devastating-impacts-south-africa-say-affected-communities" hreflang="en">EU scramble for hydrogen to have devastating impacts in South Africa, say affected communities</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - extra quotes.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Scramble%20for%20Hydrogen%20in%20South%20Africa%20-%20extra%20quotes.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - extra quotes.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Tell the EU: No to Green Hydrogen Imports</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Wed, 26 Nov 2025 23:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">27.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>144* civil society organisations call on European leaders to scrap the EU Commission’s target of importing 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 and end all financial support for green hydrogen imports. Instead, EU governments must meet their climate goals through domestic efforts and by rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.</p> <p>The statement is still open to signatures, so if your organisation would like to sign, <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1sYfin9wS6L45ih3o7XQbnzAarU0NJefRqwCqTYBDDFY/preview">click here</a>.</p> <p>*This figure is correct as of 16 December 2025, but will be periodically updated</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The open letter, including all signatories on 27 November 2025, is available in the following languages: </strong><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20EN.pdf">English</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20AR_0.pdf">Arabic</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20FR_0.pdf">French</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20DE_0.pdf">German</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20IT_0.pdf">Italian</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20ES_0.pdf">Spanish</a></p> <p><em><strong>Full text:</strong></em></p> <p>The European Union wants to import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030, targeting countries such as Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Namibia, Tunisia, and South Africa. This goal, aggressively pushed by corporate and fossil fuel industry interests and their lobby groups, is not only unrealistic. It is unjust, inefficient, and rooted in a neocolonial model that prioritises flawed European energy agendas over the rights, needs, and futures of communities in the Global South. And despite the promise to increase European energy security, shifting from one imported commodity to another will only deepen Europe’s energy reliance on its peripheries. The EU cannot claim to lead a green and just transition while advancing energy colonialism abroad.</p> <p>More than 80 groups from Africa, Europe and the world<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/corporateeurope.org/en/2025/03/CSOs-reject-South-H2-corridor"> already said no</a> to the SoutH2 Corridor, intended to transport hydrogen from North Africa to Germany. They recognised the problem was not limited to one pipeline, exposing the flaws of large scale, export oriented hydrogen production projects and calling for governments to “stop investing in large scale hydrogen production and transport projects that are blocking the construction of a just energy model for communities across Europe and Africa.” Nor is the problem limited to one continent.</p> <p>Wherever it takes place, large-scale production of green hydrogen requires enormous amounts of land, water, and renewable energy. For producing countries, this means displacing communities, grabbing land, overexploiting scarce water sources, and redirecting renewable energy that could be used for local development. All of this is done in the name of meeting Europe’s decarbonisation targets, while offering little to no benefit to the people on the ground. If green hydrogen is to be developed, it should be for local use, not European factories, but renewable energy must first and foremost be used to meet local needs and rights, not as a commodity to be extracted and shipped abroad. Europe cannot transition its own economy on the backs of those in the Global South.</p> <p><strong>Why We Say No to Green Hydrogen Imports</strong></p> <p><strong>Impacts on producing countries’ communities</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Land and water grabbing</strong>: export-driven hydrogen projects require vast amounts of land and water, often acquired through dispossession of local communities with no free, prior, and informed consent.</li> <li><strong>Access to energy</strong>: renewable energy infrastructure is being built not for local benefit, but for European markets, while local populations often lack adequate access to energy.</li> <li><strong>No local decent jobs or real development</strong>: despite the promises of governments and big companies, these projects will create few employment opportunities and fail to significantly contribute to local economies, while simultaneously destroying existing livelihoods.</li> </ul> <p><strong>A neocolonial and extractivist model</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Not a just transition</strong>: these imports reflect a continuation of extractivist practices, where natural resources are taken from the Global South to power the economies of the Global North, while the social, environmental and economic costs are left behind.</li> <li><strong>All European:</strong> most of the companies involved will be European, the technology European, the consumers European, and therefore the profits also “European”, going straight into the pockets of a few large multinational corporations.</li> <li><strong>Debt and risk on producing countries</strong>: Donor countries provide mainly loans and guarantees for European corporations and banks, while governments in producing countries are expected to use public funds to provide the counter-guarantees needed to de-risk private investments, pushing debt burdens onto already struggling public finances of governments in the Global South.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Sustaining a fossil fuel economy</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Trojan horse for fossil fuels:</strong> oil and gas companies publicly promote green hydrogen while privately ensuring fossil hydrogen is considered “clean” and “low carbon”, prolonging the extraction of gas and locking-in failed technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS).</li> <li><strong>Business as usual for big polluters:</strong> fossil fuel-reliant polluters like ArcelorMittal have used the promise of green hydrogen tomorrow to continue with business as usual today.</li> <li><strong>Prolongs fossil fuel infrastructure</strong>: so-called “hydrogen-ready” infrastructure is being used to transport, store and burn fossil gas, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.</li> <li><strong>Delays the transition</strong>: instead of rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas and investing in local, democratic publicly-owned renewable energy systems, the EU is keeping fossil fuel corporations in control.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Economic nonsense</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Expensive and inefficient</strong>: producing and exporting green hydrogen over long distances is economically unviable. It requires enormous subsidies and infrastructure costs.</li> <li><strong>Paid by taxpayers and local communities</strong>: European taxpayers will subsidise hydrogen imports while being exposed to increasing energy insecurity and climate disasters. In the Global South, communities pay through land loss, water stress, and long-term debt. Meanwhile large corporations profit on both sides.</li> </ul> <p><strong>We call on the European Union and its Member States to:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Scrap the target of 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen imports by 2030</strong> and commit to meeting national climate goals through domestic efforts and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.</li> <li><strong>End all public subsidies and financial support for green hydrogen import infrastructure</strong> and export-oriented hydrogen production projects abroad.</li> <li><strong>Support countries in the Global South</strong> with their own just transitions, rooted in sustainability, social justice and ensuring local energy democracy. The same big polluters that caused the climate crisis should be paying for it.</li> </ol> <p>The EU must not pursue a green transition that replicates the injustices of the fossil fuel era. Green hydrogen imports are a false solution that serve corporate agendas while deepening global inequality. They should not be at the heart of free trade deals, energy partnerships or clean trade and investment partnerships. A truly just energy transition is global in scale, not European, and it must centre people and communities, not corporate profits. We demand an energy future rooted in climate justice and equity for all.</p> <p><strong>No to green hydrogen imports. No to energy colonialism. Yes to just energy models for communities in the Global South, in Europe and everywhere.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Initial signatories:</strong></p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)<br>Counter Balance<br>groundWork South Africa (Friends of the Earth South Africa)<br>Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (ODG)<br>ReCommon<br>Transnational Institute (TNI)</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Additional signatories:</strong></p> <p>مجموعة العمل من أجل السيادة الغذائية <br>350.org<br>Anti-Jindal & Anti-POSCO Movement (JPPSS )<br>Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) <br>AICED RDC<br>Airport eXpansion Opposition Southampton (AXO)<br>Alliance for Law in Development <br>Anders Handeln<br>Andy Gheorghiu Consulting<br>Anti-Jindal & Anti-POSCO Movement (JPPSS )<br>Asamblea Popular Ambiental Colón-Ruta 135<br>Association Survie<br>Attac Austria<br>ATTAC CADTM Togo<br>attac Deutschland<br>ATTAC España <br>Aukotowa fisheries<br>Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC)<br>Biofuelwatch<br>Campagna Nazionale Per il Clima Fuori dal Fossile<br>CCFD - Terre Solidaire<br>CEE Bankwatch Network<br>Centre tricontinental - CETRI<br>Centro cultural Lluviosa<br>CESTA Amigos de la Tierra<br>Climate Action Network- Africa<br>Climate Clock DRC <br>Climate Emergency Science Law<br>Coalition of Women Farmers <br>Coalition of women farmers in Malawi<br>Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)<br>Cobas Brindisi<br>CooperAcció<br>Coordinadora Feminista de la Patagonia Rebelde <br>Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv<br>Coordinamento Ravennate Fuori dal Fossile<br>Diálogo 2000-Jubilro Sur Argentina<br>Earth Ethics, Inc.<br>Ecologistas en Acción<br>Ecologistes en Acció de Catalunya<br>Economic & Social Justice Trust<br>El Zumbido<br>Emergenzaclimatica.it<br>Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas.org)<br>European Trade Justice Coalition<br>FADA Collective<br>Farnborough Noise Group<br>Fish arendze coop<br>Food & Water Action Europe<br>Forum Ambientalista<br>Fresh Eyes<br>Fridays For Future Spain<br>Friends of the Earth Europe<br>Friends of the Earth Malta<br>Friends of the Earth Scotland<br>Friends of the Earth Spain<br>Fuel Poverty Action<br>fundacion acue<br>Fundación Ciudadanos y Clima <br>Fundación Renovables <br>GADIP, Gender and Development in Practice<br>Gastivists Collective<br>Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet (GASP)<br>Greenpeace<br>Grupo de Reflexión y Autoformación en Transiciones Ecosociales (GRATE)<br>gWÖ<br>Help Initiative for Social Justice and Humanitarian Development <br>HyNot<br>IAEDEN-Salvem l'Empordà<br>Initiative Bonne Gouvernance des Ressources naturelles au Kivu<br>Innovation pour le Développement et la Protection de l'Environnement <br>JA!Justica Ambiental<br>JournalRAGE <br>Just Transition Wakefield<br>Justiça Ambiental JA!<br>KULU-Women and Development<br>Les Amis de la Terre - Belgique asbl<br>Les Amis de la Terre-Togo<br>Limity jsme my<br>Linha Vermelha - Red Line<br>London Mining Network<br>Magamba Network <br>MenaFem Movement for Economic, Development, and Ecological Justice<br>Mothers Rise Up<br>MOUVEMENT JEUNESSE ET CITOYENNETE<br>Mouvement Jeunesse et Citoyenneté Toliara<br>Movimento No TAP/SNAM Brindisi<br>Nama Traditional Leaders Association <br>No Hub del Gas Abruzzo<br>NOAH - Friends of the Earth Denmark <br>Oil Change International <br>Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur<br>Parents for Future Leipzig<br>Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF <br>Platform<br>Polish Green Network<br>Power Shift Africa<br>Private<br>RAPEN<br>Red "Gas No Es Solución"<br>Red Europea OIDHACO (Oficina Internacional Derechos Humanos Acción Colombia)<br>Red union de la costa<br>Resilient40<br>Rete Legalità per il clima<br>Rete Nazionale No Rigass No GNL<br>Rettet den Regenwald e.V. - Rainforest Rescue<br>Salva la Selva<br>SEAE- Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica y Agroecología<br>Seica<br>Sekhukhune Combined Mining Affected Communities (SCMAC) <br>SETEM Catalunya<br>Siyada Network<br>Society for Women and Youths Affairs (SWAYA)<br>SOLIFONDS<br>SOMO<br>South African Fishworkers Legal Advice Services. <br>Southern Africa Rural Women's Assembly<br>Stay Grounded<br>Sustainable development institute <br>Sustentarse <br>Synergie des Jeunes pour le Développement et les Droits Humains "SJDDH"<br>The Green Connection <br>The New School<br>Time to cycle<br>TRAFFED -RDC Asbl <br>United for Climate Justice<br>Universidad Veracruzana <br>University of the Uruguayan Republic<br>urgewald<br>VZW WILOO<br>Weald Action Group<br>Women In Development Europe+ (WIDE+)<br>Working group for Energy Democracy <br>Workshop for All Beings<br>Yorkshire and Humber Climate Justice Coalition<br>Zonaizquierda.org</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">27.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/more-130-groups-call-eu-scrap-green-hydrogen-import-targets" hreflang="en">More than 130 groups call on EU to scrap green hydrogen import targets</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">17.03.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/corporateeurope.org/en/2025/03/CSOs-reject-South-H2-corridor" hreflang="en">We say No to the South H2 Corridor </a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen" hreflang="en">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - EN.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20EN.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - EN.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - ES.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20ES_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - ES.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - FR.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20FR_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - FR.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - AR.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20AR_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - AR.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - DE.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20DE_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - DE.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter - IT.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open%20letter%20-%20IT_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter - IT.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>As workers across Europe prepare to strike, Amazon ups lobby power</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Wed, 26 Nov 2025 06:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">26.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/854" hreflang="en">Monopoly power</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB"><strong>Brussels, 26 November 2025 </strong>- From Black Friday to Cyber Monday (28 November–1 December), workers, activists and citizens around the world will take action for <a href="https://cloud.progressive.international/s/4aY3xXLyYpfD7gs/download">Make Amazon Pay</a> day. Ranking high in their <a href="https://makeamazonpay.com/">criticism</a> of the company are exploitative working conditions, expanding market power, its ties to the Israeli military, its rapid expansion of energy-intensive data centres, and its alignment with the Trump administration. </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB">Following the withdrawal of its European Parliament lobby badges last year, Amazon’s lobbying has come under <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/parliament-weighs-larger-lobbying-ban-for-amazon/">intense scrutiny</a>. As workers and citizens take to the streets this Friday, new figures from the EU and national lobby transparency registers analysed by Corporate Europe Observatory and SOMO show that in spite of the increased scrutiny the company has massively increased its lobbying power in Europe.</p> <p>Key findings include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Amazon is spending more on EU lobbying than ever before.</strong> In 2024, it had the second-highest corporate lobbying budget in the EU at €7 million, tied with Apple and Microsoft.</li> <li>In the past, Amazon was caught underdeclaring how much it spends on EU lobbying. In 2022, following a complaint to the EU Transparency Register by CEO, SOMO, and LobbyControl over inaccurate reporting, Amazon updated its disclosed lobbying budget – more than doubling it.</li> <li><strong>Amazon held an average of almost three lobby meetings per week with EU policymakers </strong>between 1 January 2025 and 31 October 2025. The company logged 58 meetings with the European Commission and, despite its lobby badges being withdrawn, 64 meetings with MEPs.</li> <li><strong>The company’s surge in spending comes as the tech industry as a whole breaks records</strong>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">pouring €151 million into lobbying</a> amid <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">an unprecedented roll-back</a> of digital rights.</li> <li><strong>In Germany and France,</strong> Amazon’s two largest EU markets, the company spent<strong> </strong>a combined €4.1 million on lobbying<strong> </strong>in 2024. Lobby transparency in other EU countries is lacking, obscuring just how much Amazon spends influencing the union.</li> <li><strong>Amazon employs at least 87 lobbyists across Europe</strong>, including 49 in Brussels, 28 in Germany and 10 in France.</li> <li><strong>Amazon has also increased its use of lobby firms and consultancies.</strong> For the 2024 financial year, it disclosed spending at least €2.9 million on 29 firms working on its behalf at the EU level.</li> <li><strong>Its network of third-party actors continues to expand.</strong> Amazon now declares membership of, or funding for, over 104 business associations, more than 31 think tanks, and two NGOs.</li> </ul> <p><a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/amazon-europe-core-sarl?rid=366117914426-10">Amazon’s lobby meetings</a> show the company is actively lobbying the EU’s competitiveness agenda, seeking to become a part of its cloud sovereignty push, and trying to shape the implementation of EU rules such as the AI Act and the Digital Markets Act. </p> <p>This comes at a time when EU regulators announced a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2717">new market investigation </a>into Amazon’s cloud computing power and just months after the German competition authority <a href="https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/2025_06_02_Amazon.html">preliminarily found </a>that the US giant abused its power towards independent sellers to control their prices in and outside of Amazon. </p> <p><strong>Margarida Silva, senior tech researcher at SOMO</strong>, said: <em>“Amazon’s mix of political and market power is what enables it to continue exploiting its workers, abuse the businesses dependent on it, and entrench its power in ecommerce and the cloud. Its new alliance with the Trump administration gives the company yet another tool to fight against regulation and accountability. The EU must listen to its workers and citizens and finally stand up to Amazon.”</em></p> <p><strong>Bram Vranken, campaigner and researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory</strong>, adds:</p> <p><em>“Amazon exploits its workers, fuels AI warfare, and destroys the climate. To protect its problematic business practices, Amazon is rapidly expanding its lobby firepower in Europe. </em></p> <p><em>As workers and citizens across the world take to the streets, the EU should listen to those voices, not to corporate interests.”</em></p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory and SOMO express their solidarity with everyone going on strike.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="oenz/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 497 131464</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p>Margarida Silva, SOMO senior tech researcher </p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="z/qbg/fvyin/ng/fbzb/qbg/ay" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; 31 (0) 206391291</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li> <p lang="en-GB">The Make Amazon Pay campaign brings together over 80 organisations working towards labour, tax, climate, data and racial justice, and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-protests-idUSKBN28D2ET">over 400 parliamentarians</a> and tens of thousands of supporters from across the world. Since 2020, the campaigns has organised five global days of action on Black Friday — each time growing the planetary movement to stop Amazon squeezing workers, communities and the planet. </p> </li> <li> <p lang="en-GB"><a href="https://www.somo.nl/the-real-winners-of-the-ai-race/">SOMO research </a>of genAI start-ups supply chain showed that, through its control of the cloud infrastructure needed to develop and commercialise genAI models, combined with an aggressive partnership strategy, Amazon has put itself in a pole position to dominate new AI markets and further consolidate its cloud power. The <a href="https://www.somo.nl/big-tech-acquires-a-new-company-every-11-days/">Digital Merger Watch M&A tracker</a> also shows that Amazon has also continued buying up other companies, especially those involved in AI, robotics and entertainment.</p> </li> <li>In November 2023, CEO, LobbyControl and SOMO <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/amazons-lobbying-satellites-orbit-eu-policy-makers">documented</a> how Amazon has been ramping up its lobby presence across Europe.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">24.11.2023</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/amazons-lobbying-satellites-orbit-eu-policy-makers" hreflang="en">Amazon's lobbying satellites orbit EU policy-makers</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Roll-back of digital rights prepared in secrecy</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:16:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> The deregulation package in the digital area is an attack on people’s rights, and it was developed in secret with business lobbyists. Lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory has filed a complaint to the European Ombudsman. </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Today, the Commission published its proposal for ‘simplification’ of digital rules, a package intended to deregulate digital laws to support businesses. The deregulation of the EU’s digital rulebook comes at a time when the tech industry is spending a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11212&qid=1835583">record-breaking €151 million</a> on EU lobbying. Most prominent is an attack on data privacy rules (GDPR) to support the development of artificial intelligence.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Corporate Europe Observatory <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11213&qid=1835583">published a new piece of research</a> documenting how Big Tech has influenced the digital omnibus.</p> <p>Key findings include:</p> <ul> <li>Key demands from Big Tech firms and their affiliated lobby associations to water down the AI Act and weaken data protection made it into the Commission’s proposals;</li> <li>Big Tech weaponised the Trump administration to attack the EU’s digital rulebook;</li> <li>The Commission has opened the doors to business lobby groups in highly secretive meetings. Crucial steps in the preparation of the digital omnibus were five so-called Reality Checks, meetings heavily dominated by industry. Out of 138 invitees, 114 were business representatives. Only 9 civil society organisation representatives were invited.</li> </ul> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory has retrieved a document which shows that the Commission has decided to exempt ‘Reality Checks’ from transparency measures that apply to other meetings with “interest representatives”.</p> <p>Without timely and comprehensive transparency and with mostly business interests at the table, lobbyists will have ample opportunity to push through deregulation to boost profits at the expense of fundamental rights. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a document that accompanies the digital omnibus, shows the political nature of the non-transparent dialogues.</p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory is lodging a complaint to the European Ombudsman about the matter. </p> <p><em><strong>Researcher and campaigner Kenneth Haar said:</strong></em></p> <p><em>“It is quite something to see that the Commission has decided to exempt meetings intended to feed into the deregulation package from the standard transparency measures. And not just the digital package, but simplification proposals as such. There simply is not justification for that.”</em></p> <p><em>“We need to stop this attack on transparency and ethics in the EU institutions. The first step is to have the European Ombudsman speak out. This approach is disrespectful to a series of decisions by the European Ombudsman over the past many years.”</em></p> <p><em><strong>Researcher and campaigner Bram Vranken said:</strong></em></p> <p><em>“This package is disastrous. It is an unprecedented attack on our digital rights. The Commission’s proposal follows a year-long corporate lobbying campaign, and it has Big Tech’s fingerprints all over it.</em></p> <p><em>In its misguided quest for competitiveness, the Commission is sacrificing fundamental rights in secretive processes that are heavily dominated by industry.”</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Bram Vranken, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11214&qid=1835583">bram@corporateeurope.org</a>; +32 497 13 14 64</p> <p>Kenneth Haar, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11215&qid=1835583">kenneth@corporateeurope.org</a>; +45 – 23 60 06 31</p> <p><strong>Notes to the editor:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Corporate Europe Observatory, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11213&qid=1835583">“Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry“</a>.</li> <li>The European Commission’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11216&qid=1835583">‘operational guidance’ on Reality Checks</a></li> <li>Corporate Europe Observatory’s complaint to the European Ombudsman is available on request.</li> </ol> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry" hreflang="en">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry</h1> <p>Bram Vranken — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:40:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission is planning an unprecedented roll-back of digital rights through its so-called ‘digital omnibuses’. In secretive meetings, the Commission has given privileged access to tech lobbyists to shape its proposals, in violation of the Commission’s own rules.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>"Europe is open for AI and for business!" Ursula von der Leyen hyperbolically <a href="https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/1889003111252926484">tweeted</a> during the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025. Her post featured a picture of a grinning von der Leyen shaking hands with Christophe Fouquet, the Chief Executive Officer of the Dutch technology company ASML.</p> <p>The AI Action Summit marked a distinctive shift in the Commission’s discourse. Where previously the Commission had at least paid least lip service to safeguarding fundamental rights in the rollout of AI, it has largely abandoned that discourse, instead talking about winning “the global race for AI”.</p> <blockquote><p>"Europe is open for AI and for business!" Ursula von der Leyen</p> </blockquote> <p>To the Commission, ‘winning the race’ is about changing the rules, making regulation ‘simpler’ for businesses – in short, it’s about deregulation. And to do that, the Commission has teamed up with tech companies. In a series of amendments in its so-called<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2718"> digital omnibus</a> the Commission intends to fatally weaken data protection in order to boost artificial intelligence. Protections against risky AI systems are also pushed under the bus.</p> <p>To make matters worse, the Commission is sidestepping even its own decisions on lobbying transparency, claiming the preparatory meetings with mainly business participation, were of a mere technical nature. In fact, in 5 secretive workshops, so-called 'Reality Checks', the Commission sat with tech companies to prepare two deregulation packages, and the talks were highly political. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Massive attack coordinated with tech companies</strong></p> <p>In its second term, the von der Leyen Commission has embarked on an unprecedented assault on existing EU rules, from environmental protections and climate policies to social rights. While the Commission has been careful to cloak its deregulation agenda in a mist of<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave"> technocratic and nebulous language</a>, in a moment of candour von der Leyen recently said the quiet part out loud: “we all agree we need simplification, we need deregulation”. In fact since Commission advisor Mario Draghi – in his report on the EU’s competitiveness – singled out data protection and the AI Act as a targets for deregulation, digital legislation has been high on von der Leyen’s so-called ‘simplification’ agenda.</p> <p>Corporate lobby groups have spotted their golden opportunity and are ramping up their efforts, with Big Tech companies averaging <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">a lobby meeting with the Commission every working day</a> in the first half of 2025.</p> <p>The Commission has already <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-deregulation-and-betrayal-of-victims-councils-general-approach-on-the-csddd/">put</a> environmental rules and human rights protections on the chopping block through so-called omnibuses. Omnibuses are proposals that set out to change several EU laws in one go, and are functioning as tools of deregulation. The Commission’s use of this tool <a href="https://thegoodlobby.eu/over-100-legal-experts-warn-omnibus-i-risks-breaching-eu-law/">is highly controversial</a>. Under the guise of only making ‘technical changes’, it sidesteps normal decision-making procedures and consultation mechanisms. The European Parliament is voting on many of these ‘omnibusses’ under 'urgent procedures', thereby undermining democratic oversight. The next omnibus in line will target the EU’s digital rules.</p> <p>The ‘digital omnibus’ published on 19 November is targeting a slew of rules from ePrivacy and the GDPR to cybersecurity and the AI Act. The omnibus is also initiating a ‘Digital Fitness Check’ that could further re-open tech laws including the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act.</p> <p>The ‘digital omnibus’ has been closely coordinated with corporate lobbyists. The Commission has set up obscure workshops called ‘Implementation Dialogues’ and ‘Reality Checks’, aimed at gathering input from industry that will “<a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/10017eb1-4722-4333-add2-e0ed18105a34_en">feed the stress testing of EU regulation</a>” in order to make EU legislation more ‘business-friendly’. In other words, the two types of dialogue provide an opportunity for corporate lobby groups to convince the Commission to set a change of the EU laws they would like to see amended, in motion.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>You ask, we deliver: how the Big Tech’s wish-list is turning into reality</strong></p> <p>On 19 November, the Commission published two omnibuses, one on the AI Act and another on data use. The proposed changes have far-ranging effects on people’s digital rights, and can be traced back to lobby positions of Big Tech companies.</p> <p><strong>Pausing AI Act implementation: </strong>By far the most lobbied-over demand is a pause to the implementation of the AI Act for one or even two years. The Commission now proposes to pause the implementation of the AI Act with potentially 16 months. This would enable companies to continue to release risky AI systems onto the market without any safeguards. These risks are far from hypothetical: from <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54698858">algorithmic-powered employee firings</a> to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2020/08/19/england-exams-algorithm-grading">biased algorithms that disadvantage students</a> based on their socio-economic background, highly problematic AI systems are already in circulation. Moreover, delaying is <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/how-pesticide-lobby-sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">a tried and tested industry lobbying tactic</a> designed to derail legislation over the longer term.</p> <p><strong>Slashing oversight on risky AI systems</strong>: During the initial negotiations on the AI Act, a controversial win for Big Tech firms was that companies can self-assess if they believe an AI system is high-risk. To compensate for that loophole, industry had to register those AI systems in a public database. Now this transparency failsafe will also be removed, basically giving tech companies a free hand in deciding if an AI system is risky without any public oversight. Lobby group <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087422_en">DOT Europe</a>, which counts Big Tech firms as its members, and <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087800_en">TikTok</a> both pushed for this. In <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7396855577064398849/">a reaction on LinkedIn</a> Daniel Leufer from the NGO Access Now called this “the biggest, most ridiculous loophole in the AI Act that will let unscrupulous providers unilaterally exempt themselves from the AI Act's obligations with oversight”.</p> <p><strong>Personal data collection free-for-all:</strong> Big Tech has also set its eyes on weakening the GDPR to make it easier to train AI models. The GDPR permits the collection of personal data without consent if there is a ‘legitimate interest’. This is already a highly contested issue, as companies such as Facebook have <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-switching-legitimate-interest-ads">misused this legal ground</a> to collect personal data for targeted advertising without asking for consent. Now Big Tech firms want to collect unlimited personal data to feed their data-hungry AI models. Not only is this <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-survey-only-7-users-want-meta-use-their-personal-data-ai">highly unpopular</a>, it could also put people’s <a href="https://hai.stanford.edu/news/privacy-ai-era-how-do-we-protect-our-personal-information">privacy up for grabs</a>.</p> <p>The Commission is now changing Article 9(2) to make the processing of personal data without people's consent a legitimate interest for the purpose for the training of AI. </p> <p>In early November 2025 the Commission’s <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-knifes-privacy-to-feed-the-ai-boom-gdpr-digital-omnibus/">proposal for the digital omnibuses were already leaked</a> to the media which closely resembles the proposed changes.</p> <p>The reactions were damning towards the Commission. The digital rights organisation NYOB <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/eu-commission-about-wreck-core-principles-gdpr">called</a> it “death by a thousand cuts” to the EU’s data protection law, while Paul Nemitz, a key figure in drafting the GDPR, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7391511950519840769?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7391511950519840769%2C7391530716725071873)&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7391530716725071873%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7391511950519840769)">wrote on LinkedIn</a> that “nothing will remain of data protection”. Over 120 civil society organisations wrote to the Commission, <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-EU-must-uphold-hard-won-protections-for-digital-human-rights.pdf">warned against</a> “the biggest rollback of digital fundamental rights in EU history”, and criticising how this was carried out in a “rushed and opaque process designed to avoid democratic oversight”.</p> <p>In particular the rash re-opening and weakening of the GDPR is raising eyebrows. The GDPR is the backbone of the EU’s digital legislation and is often considered to be the global gold standard for data protection regulation. In an Implementation Dialogue in July 2025 aimed at simplifying the GDPR, the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/835dfd02-a38c-4cc3-ba53-5b0499e2b8b9_en?filename=Summary%20Conclusions%20Implementation%20Dialogue%20on%20the%20GDPR.pdf">main message</a> from stakeholders was that “the GDPR is a balanced legal framework which has met its objectives” and cautioned against a general re-opening.</p> <p>“Policy should not be driven by a dogmatic faith that deregulation will always and inevitably liberate innovation,” Johnny Ryan from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Georg Riekeles from European Policy Centre <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/12/eu-gdpr-data-law-us-tech-giants-digital">wrote in an op-ed</a> in <em>The Guardian</em> following the leaked omnibus proposal.</p> <p>But it seems exactly that misguided idea – that deregulation will unleash AI innovation – that has become front and centre of the EU’s agenda and has opened the door to a Big Tech lobby campaign. Worse, deregulation in a highly monopolized market, only risks to further <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-misguided-fixation-on-enhanching-tech-competitiveness-by-marietje-schaake-and-max-von-thun-2025-04">entrench</a> dominant players.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The corporate lobby campaign to axe the EU’s digital rules</strong></p> <p>In September 2024 Mario Draghi published his report on the EU’s competitiveness. The report, which was heavily <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/between-lines-corporate-interest-shapes-narrative-over-draghis-report">influenced by corporate interests</a>, singled out the AI Act and the GDPR as barriers to ‘competitiveness’ tapping into a false choice between regulation and innovation.</p> <p>He wrote that “the EU now faces an unavoidable trade-off.” The choice was between stronger regulation “for fundamental rights and product safety” and “more regulatory light-handed rules to promote EU investment”.</p> <p>Big Tech lobbyists quickly caught on to the new political wind in Brussels. Less than two weeks after the Draghi report, Meta coordinated a deceptive campaign called '<a href="https://euneedsai.com/">EU needs AI</a>'. In an open letter, it argued that “Europe can't afford to miss out on the widespread benefits from responsibly built open AI technologies” and demanded “European data to be used in AI training”. While the letter claimed to represent European businesses, in reality at least one-third of the supporters were either employed or financed by Meta or had a close partnership with the company.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Meta lobby letter was published in newspapers across Europe.</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Source: <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/macht-der-digitalkonzerne/einseitige-lobbykampagne-zu-ki-regulierung-von-meta-co-117428/">LobbyControl</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>How Big Tech weaponised the Trump administration</strong></p> <p>But while at the start of 2025, the scope of the Commission’s deregulation of digital rules was very much up in the air with initially only the Cybersecurity Act <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8556fc33-48a3-4a96-94e8-8ecacef1ea18_en?filename=250201_Simplification_Communication_en.pdf">being mentioned</a> as part of a digital omnibus, a Big Tech lobby campaign and external pressure from the Trump administration quickly changed this.</p> <p>At the AI Action Summit, the US Vice-President JD Vance opened an all-out attack on the EU’s digital rule-book. Vance railed against “excessive regulation of the AI sector” and warned that “America cannot and will not accept that… foreign governments tighten the screws on US tech companies”.</p> <p>The speech kick-started a full-blown lobby offensive both in the United States as well as in Europe.</p> <p>Two days later, at the Munich Security Council in February 2025, Meta’s main lobbyist Joel Kaplan <a href="https://fortune.com/2025/02/17/meta-mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump-eu-commission-brussels-munich-security-conference/">said</a> that the company would enlist Trump’s help whenever it feels discriminated against by EU rules. A week later Meta’s Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg was already <a href="https://archive.is/20250219225416/https:/www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-19/zuckerberg-goes-to-capitol-to-lobby-on-artificial-intelligence">lobbying US Senators</a> to push back against the EU’s rules. Meta also <a href="https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/Meta-AI-RFI-2025.pdf">wrote in a paper</a> on the US AI Action Plan sent to the Trump administration in March that “if the EU continues to target American tech companies — through uncertain and hostile regulatory regimes... the global AI standard will be Chinese”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other CEOs having dinner with Trump at the White House</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Source:<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-tech-leaders-unite-american-ai-dominance/"> The White House</a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>While AI was at the top of tech companies’ agenda, the GDPR was also increasingly targeted. A blog post from the Center for Data Innovation – a Big Tech funded think tank – <a href="https://datainnovation.org/2025/04/europes-gdpr-fines-against-us-firms-are-unfair-and-disproportionate/">railed</a> against the “EU’s disproportionate obsession with American tech companies” for fining Big Tech firms under the GDPR and called on the Trump administration to “fight back against EU laws”. In <a href="https://www.nftc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Multi-Association-Letter-on-Addressing-EU-Digital-Concerns-in-Trade-Deals-July-3-2025-1.pdf">a separate letter</a> to the US government a coalition of Big Tech associated lobby groups called on the Trump administration to act against the “EU’s discriminatory digital regulation policy” including the GDPR and the AI Act.</p> <p>This lobbying campaign proved to be successful. In February 2025, the Trump administration <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5158973-donald-trump-executive-order-overseas-extortion/">passed an executive order</a> threatening to impose tariffs on foreign governments in response to taxes or fines of Big Tech companies. And at the end of April, the US Mission to the EU sent a detailed letter to the Commission in which it demanded that the Commission should water down the Code of Practice on General Purpose AI and, crucially, pause the implementation of the AI Act.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>From the US to the Commission</strong></p> <p>In the following weeks the Commission showed how far it was willing to go to please Big Tech. The Commissioner for Technological Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen travelled to San Francisco to meet with a host of Big Tech chief executives including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, and Apple’s Tim Cook.<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/virkkunen_may_us_trip_with_us_te#incoming-61364"> Internal documents</a> paint a stark picture. At every meeting, Virkkunen repeated again and again that “it's a priority for us to simplify Al Act implementation”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Commissioner Virkkunen meeting with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg during her tour in San Francisco</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Source: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henna-virkkunen_this-week-i-had-a-busy-working-visit-to-activity-7329924113186054144-wNU2/">LinkedIn</a> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>According to a <a href="https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.ft.com/content/af6c6dbe-ce63-47cc-8923-8bce4007f6e1"><em>Financial Times</em> article</a> the Commission also closely “engaged” with the Trump administration on the deregulation of the AI Act.</p> <blockquote><p>At every meeting with Big Tech CEOs, Virkkunen repeated again and again that “it's a priority for us to simplify Al Act implementation”.</p> </blockquote> <p>At the beginning of June, the Polish Presidency really got the ball rolling by picking up the Trump administration’s demand to ‘stop-the-clock’ on the AI Act. The Polish Government also singled out the GDPR as a barrier to “the ambition for the AI Act to stimulate AI development and training in the EU”. The <a href="https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9383-2025-INIT/en/pdf">Polish Presidency document</a> was drawn up with input from “a wide range of stakeholders”. In reality the only stakeholders consulted were corporate lobby groups including business associations closely aligned with Big Tech including the American Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology Industry Council, and DOT Europe.</p> <p>According to <em>Politico</em>, at the Polish Presidency digital summit in Gdańsk in mid-June, corporate lobbyists couldn’t hide their glee with the lobby group European AI Forum organising an axe-throwing competition under the banner of “cut the red tape — deregulation contest”.</p> <p>Others quickly piled up on the momentum. In July European companies from the EU AI Champions Initiative <a href="https://aichampions.eu/#stoptheclock">published an open letter</a> calling for a “two-year clock-stop” on the AI Act. Ironically, despite its name, the platform is spearheaded by the Silicon Valley venture capital fund General Catalyst which has major investments in European and US AI companies including Anthropic, AirBnB, Mistral AI, Helsing, and the controversial military AI company Anduril. Others have gone even further. The Big Tech funded think tank European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) proposed to cancel the AI Act altogether.</p> <p>The Consumer Choice Center Europe, a big business <a href="https://multinationales.org/en/investigations/the-atlas-network-france-and-the-eu/">front group</a> which <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/consumer-choice-center-europe?rid=634783053106-61">receives its complete budget</a> from Google and Meta, joined the choir and pushed for the re-opening of the GDPR in <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/07/18/european-data-union-strategy-lets-not-avoid-the-difficult-questions">a Euronews</a> op-ed.</p> <p>Piling on to the tech industry’s lobby offensive, in September 2025 in a much-touted speech, Draghi once again <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/0951a4ff-cd1a-4ea3-bc1d-f603decc1ed9_en?filename=Draghi_Speech_High_Level_Conference_One_Year_After.pdf">lambasted</a> the Commission for not going fast enough, and called for the deregulation of the GDPR and the AI Act. An <a href="https://noyb.eu/en/eu-commission-about-wreck-core-principles-gdpr">influential position paper from the German government</a> also pushed for far-reaching proposals to water down data protection. According to <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/pressemitteilung/digitalgipfel-weniger-datenschutz-mehr-macht-fuer-big-tech-123225/">an analysis by LobbyControl</a>, the lobby positions of Google, Microsoft, and the lobby groups Bitkom and DigitalEurope were clearly reflected in the position paper.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The industry agenda, far from technical</strong></p> <p>While the door was already wide open to industry lobbyists, in September the Commission rolled a series of behind closed doors meetings, so-called ‘Reality Checks’ to feed into the digital omnibus.</p> <p>The von der Leyen Commission has rolled out two new kinds of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">consultation mechanisms</a>: the Implementation Dialogues and the Reality Checks.</p> <p>In both cases, they were consultation procedures set up to help the Commission scan existing EU laws to simplify them. The difference between the two, is that the Reality Checks are supposed to be more of a technical exercise, as opposed to “the more political discussion in the implementation dialogue,” as an internal Commission document puts it.</p> <p>The apparently technical approach of the Reality Checks is used by the Commission to restrict transparency. An <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Reality%20checks%20Operational%20guidance.pdf">operational guidance document</a> obtained by Corporate Europe Observatory makes clear that Reality Checks “are exempted from the transparency measures applicable to meetings with interest representatives".</p> <p lang="en-US">The numbers from 2025 tell a tale: of the 23 Reality Checks scheduled to happen in the first three quarters of 2025 – according to an internal Commission document – 17 do not appear at all on the Commission’s website. In only 2 cases have a list of participants been made public, and only in 3 cases has the report been made available to the public.</p> <blockquote><p lang="en-US">Without transparency and with mostly business interests at the table, lobbyists will have ample opportunity to push through deregulation to boost profits at the expense of environmental protection, public health and social rights.</p> </blockquote> <p>That begs the question whether the Reality Checks used to prepare the digital omnibus were in fact merely technical. Looking at the far-reaching rollback of fundamental rights in the Commission’s leaked omnibus proposal and how closely those are tailored to the tech industry’s agenda that would be surprising.</p> <p>In a comment to Corporate Europe Observatory, Itxaso Domínguez from the NGO EDRi, who was able to attend one of the Reality Checks said, “While the Commission presented these [Reality Checks] as technical discussions, they clearly had policy implications, as the framing steered participants towards loosening consent requirements and reinterpreting ePrivacy in light of industry demands. In practice, the discussion was dominated by industry representatives.”</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/reality_checks_digital_omnibus#incoming-61950">Commission documents released</a> to Corporate Europe Observatory following a Freedom of Information request, the extent of corporate dominance becomes clear. In the five Reality Checks, the Commission invited 114 companies out of a total of 138 invitees. Only 9 civil society organisations were invited.</p> <p>In the Reality Check on data use over 40 companies were invited, but only two civil society organisations. Similarly, at the Reality Check on AI, only two civil society organisations were invited, compared with ten companies and business associations. Several of the companies present such as <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/airbus-and-other-eu-industry-giants-join-calls-to-stop-the-clock-on-ai-act/">Airbus</a>, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/03/trojan-horses-how-european-startups-teamed-big-tech-gut-ai-act">Aleph Alpha</a>, and <a href="https://www.digitaleurope.org/resources/executive-brief-removing-regulatory-burden-for-a-more-competitive-and-resilient-europe/">DigitalEurope have</a> been lobbying the EU to weaken the AI Act.</p> <p>Civil society organisations that did ask to be granted access to the Reality Checks were in some cases refused access. In an email to a prominent civil society organisation seen by Corporate Europe Observatory, the Commission was candid about why civil society was not welcome: “we intend to ask (mostly) companies about their day to day operations and expenditures in complying with the regulations”. The agenda sent to invitees also made clear who the Commission’s target audience is with the following header: “a roundtable with industry leaders on their experiences with the AI Act’s implementation”.</p> <p><strong>Secretive clubs to prepare changes to EU law</strong></p> <p>The Commission has spent many months preparing the proposals now made public. And all along, they have carried out 5 Reality Checks, 5 thorough dialogues, mainly with industry. The content of these talks, and the participants has been kept out of the public eye. </p> <p>Now, with the tabling of the proposal, the Commission has made it clear that the content of the Reality Checks are not technical, ie. uncontroversial and unpolitical. That is clear from the descriptions of the meetings in the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/121743">staff working document</a> accompanying the proposal. The derogations on transparency measures granted to those organizing the Reality Checks, then, are not even justified under the Commission’s internal rules. </p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory has now filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the Reality Checks and the dominance of corporate interests.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Commission agenda for the AI Reality Check: "a roundtable with industry leaders".</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Source: EU AI Office.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The origins of Reality Checks</strong></p> <p>'Reality Checks' are a new kind of 'targeted consultation', ie consultations reserved for selected participants. The idea came not from the European Commission, but from the French and German governments. In a letter from May 2024, when the EU was preparing for a new term – with a new Commission, and European elections – French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz published a <a href="https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2024/05/29/a-new-agenda-to-boost-competitiveness-and-growth-in-the-european-union">common statement</a> in which they called for “the launch of so called 'reality checks' at European level to identify unnecessary bureaucratic burden in a more targeted way”.</p> <p>In September 2024, the Draghi report highlighted “reality checks” as a best practice to “reduce bureaucracy”, invented in Germany. Reality Checks gather “experts from the businesses and administrations concerned to identify obstacles and potential solutions for individual scenarios and investment projects,” <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness_%20In-depth%20analysis%20and%20recommendations_0.pdf">the report</a> said. With the start of the new Commission, von der Leyen picked up the idea and rolled it out across all Commission departments.</p> <p>Together with Implementation Dialogues, Reality Checks risk to structurally embed industry’s privileged access to the EU’s decision-making process, largely excluding other stakeholders. They provide opportunities for corporate lobby groups to push for deregulation in a secluded space with little or no intervention from other interests on society. </p> <p>The lack of transparency of Reality Checks only worsens matters. After all, the rationale behind seeking consultation not dominated by companies is to avoid lawmaking becoming captured by vested interests and to protect the quality of lawmaking. Without transparency and with mostly business interests at the table, lobbyists will have ample opportunity to push through deregulation to boost profits at the expense of environmental protection, public health and social rights.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-US"><strong>A parrot on a stick</strong></p> <p>In November 2025, <a href="https://www.iccl.ie/press-release/scientists-call-on-the-president-of-the-european-commission-to-retract-ai-hype-statement/">a group of over 70 AI scientists</a> wrote to the Commission asking Ursula von der Leyen to retract an earlier statement in which she said that “We thought AI would only approach human reasoning around 2050. Now we expect this to happen already next year.” Subsequent questions about the scientific evidence, showed that von der Leyen’s speech relied on statements made by the chief executives of AI companies Anthropic, NVIDIA, and OpenAI. These are all companies that have profited immensely from <a href="https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/research/1-1-the-agi-mythology-the-argument-to-end-all-arguments">selling hyperbolic predictions about AI</a> that are not borne out by the facts, and have used that hyperbole to get away with all sorts of detrimental societal impacts, from the <a href="https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Data-centres-report.pdf">climate cost of their AI systems</a>, to putting on the market <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-generative-ai-bias/">AI systems that perpetuate unfairness and bias</a>.</p> <p>In a <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2025/kuenstliche-intelligenz-ursula-von-der-leyen-als-papagei-der-tech-bosse/">scathing op-ed in the German outlet <em>Netzpolitik</em></a>, the computer scientist Constanze Kurz called von der Leyen a "parrot of the tech CEOs” and urged the Commission to stop appeasing tech companies with an “anti-GDPR agenda”.</p> <blockquote><p>Rather than tackling Big Tech’s monopoly power, the Commission is seeking to undermine people’s digital rights in the expectation of catching up in the ‘global AI race’.</p> </blockquote> <p lang="en-US">While the Commission has been touting its mission to build Europe’s ‘digital sovereignty’ and break away from the power of Big Tech, the past year has told a different story. It is increasingly courting the tech industry by sacrificing years of progress in regulating the internet and reigning in Big Tech’s toxic business model, buying into the industry’s lobby frame that regulation stands in the way of innovation. Rather than tackling Big Tech’s monopoly power, the Commission is seeking to undermine people’s digital rights in the expectation of catching up in the ‘global AI race’.</p> <p>However, Big Tech’s successful lobbying of the Commission will not go unchallenged. The Commission’s proposals are already facing major backlash with S&D, Renew, the Greens, and the Left highly critical of the plans.</p> <p>And in just a matter of days, over 120 civil society organisations called on the Commission to “halt any attempts to reopen the GDPR, ePrivacy framework, AI Act or other core digital rights protections”. It is time for the Commission to listen to those voices, instead of courting tech CEOs.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.09.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime" hreflang="en">A social dumping disaster? EU’s ‘ 28th Regime’ plans could help corporations bypass member state rules</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">30.04.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/04/coded-privileged-access" hreflang="en">Coded for privileged access</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Boycott the EP’s Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs</h1> <p>Joana — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:34:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>CEO joins 30+ organisations asking the political groups in the European Parliament to boycott the new scrutiny working group on NGOs. The civil society organisations dedicated to protecting civic and human rights as well as the crucial role civil society plays in democratic policy making , wrote a letter to the leadership of the 4 main democratic political groups this week to express their grave concerns regarding the newly created Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs (SWG).</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Corporate Europe Observatory joins 30+ organisations to demand that the new scrutiny working group (SWG) on NGOs in the European Parliament as set up by the far-right and EPP should be boycotted by the other political groups. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open-Letter-Scrutiny-Working-Group-on-NGOs.pdf">You can read the joint letter here</a>.</p> <p>"This SWG is nothing more than a political translation of the smear campaign against civil society by the far-right", explains Hans van Scharen, researcher and campaigner at CEO. While NGOs have always been fully committed to being transparent and have also been campaigning for decades to get a more transparent EU decision making process, the far-right and EPP are closely working together and blocking more transparency. Hans adds "both political forces want to get rid of NGOs that are advocating for protective EU rules on issues related to for example health, environment and climate change and are the same political groups that are pushing the deregulation agenda and are weakening all kinds of protective rules".</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>This new scrutiny working group (SWG) on NGOs in the European parliament as set up in June by the far-right groups and the European People’s Party (EPP) should be boycotted by the other democratic political groups. The same 4 political groups (Renew, S&D, Greens and The Left) that collectively voted against the establishment of the SWG in the Conference of Presidents meeting last June should now not legitimize the SWG nor fuelling far-right misinform. </p> <p>The Letter states that “in the past year, the EPP and far-right political groups in the Parliament have engaged in unfounded attacks on NGOs, creating an atmosphere of unwarranted suspicion toward civil society actors. These institutional attacks have persisted to this day, despite a complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing”. </p> <p>Civil society fully support efforts to improve transparency and accountability for all beneficiaries of EU funds, including private companies often receiving a multitude of the relatively modest subsidies given to NGOs. Furthermore civil society states that “the European Parliament holds – and must exercise - essential institutional democratic scrutiny powers, including through the treaty-based budgetary discharge procedure”.</p> <p>According to civil society the Parliament can further “scrutinize NGOs, or any other final beneficiary of EU funds, they have existing instruments and procedures to do so. Through last year’s discharge procedure, the CONT committee scrutinized dozens of NGO grant agreements, repeatedly questioned the Commissioner for budget as well as Commission services responsible. Despite this extensive endeavour, there were neither findings of misuse of EU funds, contravention of rules, nor of maladministration. The European Court of Auditors also extensively reviewed this topic in the context of their special report, “Transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs”. The report did not find any wrongdoing, financial irregularities, nor did it find any misuse of EU funds by NGOs.</p> <p>This new SWG is nothing more than a political translation of the <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/03/false-alarm-fake-news-and-right-fuel-attack-ngos">unfounded smear campaign</a> against civil society by the far-right, a coordinated campaign which has been intensifying since one year. The worry some aspect is that the EPP, the biggest political group has joined forces with the far right also on this file, next to pushing through a wrecking deregulation campaign on many policy areas. </p> <p>As this SWG becomes operational within the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT), civil society urge political groups to maintain a political boycott “to ensure that the European Parliament maintains its commitment to established democratic procedures and support for civil society”.</p> <p>While NGOs have always been fully committed to being transparent and have also been campaigning for decades to get a more transparent EU decision making process, it’s precisely the far-right and EPP are closely working together and <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2023/06/six-months-after-qatargate-ngos-criticise-slow-and-unsufficient-reforms">blocking more transparency</a>, for example after <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2023/12/qatargate">the Qatargate scandal</a>. </p> <p>Both political forces want to get rid of NGOs that are politically advocating for protective EU rules on issues related to for example health, environment, climate change and free trade agreements that weaken these protective policies. It’s no coincidence that it’s the same political groups which are pushing strongly for <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">the deregulation agenda </a>and are weakening all kinds of protective rules as well as democratic policy making.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter on Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Open-Letter-Scrutiny-Working-Group-on-NGOs.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter on Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Fossil fuel lobbyists flood COP30 climate talks in Brazil</h1> <p>Pascoe Sabido — Fri, 14 Nov 2025 08:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> coal, oil and gas lobby enjoy largest ever attendance share </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/un-climate-talks" hreflang="en">UN climate talks</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>With one in every 25 COP30 attendees a fossil fuel lobbyist, massive industry presence intensifies calls to protect climate negotiations from corporate capture. </em></p> <p>New analysis reveals more than 1600 fossil fuel lobbyists have been granted access to the COP30 climate talks in Belém, marking yet another year of overwhelming industry presence at crucial climate negotiations, according to the<a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/"> Kick Big Polluters Out</a> (KBPO) coalition.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The analysis reveals that fossil fuel lobbyists significantly outnumber almost every country delegation at COP30 – with only host country Brazil (3805), sending more people. Proportionally, this is a 12% increase from <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP29FossilFuelLobbyists">last year’s climate talks</a> in Baku, Azerbaijan, and is the largest concentration of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP since KBPO started analysing conference attendees. </p> <p>With one in every 25 participants in Belém representing the fossil fuel industry, the calls for an accountability framework to protect the talks from big polluters grow stronger.</p> <p>The Kick Big Polluters Out coalition analyzed the provisional list of participants at COP30 line-by-line. The findings include:</p> <ul> <li>Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official delegates from the Philippines by nearly 50 to 1 – even while the country is being hit by devastating typhoons as the UN climate talks are underway. Fossil fuel lobbyists sent more than 40 times the number of people than Jamaica, which is still reeling from Hurricane Melissa.</li> <li>Fossil fuel lobbyists have received two thirds more passes to COP30 than all the delegates from the 10 most<a href="https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/rankings/"> climate vulnerable nations</a> combined (1061), highlighting how industry presence continues to dwarf that of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis. [1]</li> <li>Major trade associations remain a primary vehicle for fossil fuel influence, with the International Emissions Trading Association bringing 60 representatives, including delegates from oil and gas giants ExxonMobil, BP, and TotalEnergies. [2]</li> <li>Behind-the-scenes access also remains a major channel for influence, with approximately 599 lobbyists gaining access through Party overflow badges that allow the individuals behind the scenes access to the inner workings of the negotiations.</li> <li>Several Global North countries included fossil fuel representatives within their official delegations – France brought 22 fossil fuel delegates, with five from TotalEnergies, including CEO Patrick Pouyanné; Japan’s delegation contained 33 fossil fuel lobbyists, among them Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Osaka Gas; and Norway snuck 17 into the talks, including six senior executives from its national oil and gas giant Equinor.</li> <li>Although attendance at COP30 is smaller overall than COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP28 in Dubai, the proportion of fossil fuel lobbyists has increased to nearly 1 in every 25 delegates present in Belem. </li> </ul> <p>Responding to the findings, Kick Big Polluters Out member Jax Bongon from IBON International in the Philippines said: <em>“It’s common sense that you cannot solve a problem by giving power to those who caused it. Yet three decades and 30 COPs later, more than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists are roaming the climate talks as if they belong here. It is infuriating to watch their influence deepen year after year, making a mockery of the process and of the communities suffering its consequences. Just days after devastating floods and supertyphoons in the Philippines, and amid worsening droughts, heatwaves, and displacement across the Global South, we see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives and undermine any hope of truly addressing the climate emergency. COP30 promises to be an ‘Implementation COP,’ yet it has so far failed to implement even a basic and long-overdue demand of kicking Big Polluters out of a conference meant to address the crisis they created.”</em></p> <p>The KBPO findings come as 2025 is set to become one of the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2025-on-track-to-be-second-or-third-warmest-year-on-record/">hottest years on record</a>, with climate disasters intensifying worldwide and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reaching unprecedented levels. Many of the fossil fuel corporations sending significant numbers of lobbyists to COP30 are also directly enabling the ongoing genocide of Palestine and systemic violence around the world. Despite growing calls for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels, the industry continues to expand operations, <a href="https://oilchange.org/news/press-release-oil-gas-decarbonization-charter/">with nearly $250 billion approved for new oil and gas projects since COP29</a>.</p> <p>Some KBPO members drew parallels between fossil fuel industry presence at COP and fossil fueled violence around the world. <em>“The fossil fuel industry and the Israel colonial regime are two sides of the same coin of destruction,"</em> said Ana Sánchez of Global Energy Embargo for Palestine (GEEP). <em>“From oil majors that fuel warplanes to an apartheid regime that flattens cities and ecosystems, both are polluters of land, air, and life itself. Israel’s genocidal machine runs on the same crude that’s burning our planet. At COP30, we cannot talk about ending fossil fuels while welcoming states and corporations that weaponize them for genocide. There is no climate justice without Palestine liberation. Kick all Big Polluters Out, kick Israel out.”</em></p> <p>The outsized fossil fuel industry presence in Belém threatens the stated goals of COP30, which Brazil has positioned as a critical moment for implementing the Paris Agreement and scaling up climate finance. This contradiction further strengthens the demand to ensure <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/Release-Polluter-Free-COP30">Polluter-free COPs</a> and establish <a href="https://corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Joint-civil-society-submission-on-COI-Aug-17-2022_.pdf">formal safeguards </a>against polluter influence.</p> <p>Thanks to sustained civil society campaigning, COP30 is the first COP where all non-government participants are expected to publicly disclose <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP30-next-steps-KBPO">who is funding their participation</a> and to confirm their individual objectives are in alignment with those of the UNFCCC. This information is made public for the world to see, but does not apply to those on government badges. This is a concerning oversight, given how this research shows that 164 fossil fuel lobbyists are gaining access through government badges. </p> <p><em>“At the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, we, the people, need to be consulted on how to close the ambition gap left by Parties to reach the Agreement’s central target of 1.5°C,"</em> said KBPO member Pat Bohland, LIFE, co-focal point of the Women and Gender Constituency. <em>“Instead, feminists are once again outnumbered eight times by lobbyists, representing the fossil, exploitative system continuing petro-masculinities and patriarchy. Being invited to Belém in the state of Para means to us fighting industries that are exploiting territories, nature and the bodies of women and gender diverse folks and to lead us into a truly just and sustainable future.”</em></p> <p>The number of fossil fuel representatives at UN climate talks has remained consistently high, with the industry present since the negotiations began. These findings reinforce the urgent need to protect the UN's climate negotiations by establishing clear conflict of interest policies and accountability measures, with countries collectively representing over 70% of the world's population having requested these conflicts of interest be addressed.</p> <p><em>“Since we are not in a real and just transition but rather in the expansion of a grim energy model that deepens the causes of the climate environment crisis, the tentacles of extractive corporations are spreading across discussion tables and decision-making spaces, contributing to an irreparable climate inaction,” said Liliana Buitrago, Pacto Ecosocial del Sur. “In a sprawling act that spans our territories, it reaches everyday life, prioritizing insatiable profit over the care needed to sustain the weaving of life.” </em></p> <p><strong>Additional quotes from KBPO members:</strong></p> <p>“Fossil fuel companies continue to lead us into a climate abyss. Not only are they responsible for a historic climate debt with the Global South, but this debt continues to accumulate and grow steadily. Governments are their accomplices. For 30 years, climate change summits have been an ideal stage for oil companies to clean up their image, do business, and find new ways to get away with environmental crimes. Today, instead of transitioning to post-oil societies, they want to extract every last drop of fossil fuels to continue feeding the capitalist system and genocidal wars.” <strong>Ivonne Yañez, Acción Ecológica, Ecuador</strong></p> <p>“More than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists have flooded COP30 this year, the same way their greed causes floods in our lands and our homes every year. Every fossil fuel lobbyist's entry into UNFCCC is a betrayal of the process, as they are the polluters who caused this crisis and yet are given front row seats to decide our very future. We know that year after year they come to climate talks to protect their profits, to push for fossil fuels, carbon markets, and other false solutions that keep extractivism destroying our communities alive. The COP should be a space for peoples solutions and not a playground for polluters.” <strong>Rachitaa Gupta, Global Coordinator, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice</strong></p> <p>"COP30 has become a marketplace for corporate greenwashing, not a platform for climate justice. Global climate talks are merely continuing the legacy of climate colonialism, by allowing corporations, investors and Global North nations to profit from destruction while silencing those most affected. Behind the pledges are still false climate solutions like carbon markets, blue economy schemes and nature-based offsets that worsen inequality and perpetuate the same cycle of power and profit. Meanwhile, women, indigenous peoples and local communities in the Global South are at the receiving end of a crisis they did not create. A just and equitable transition must begin with accountability for historical and ongoing emissions, as affirmed by the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities, and by centreing community-led, gender-just systems such as agroecology. There is no other way but to reclaim the right of peoples and communities to achieve real climate justice." <strong>Ranjana Giri, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)</strong></p> <p>“The NDCs at this COP30 were supposed to be the ones to align with the 1.5⁰ C climate limit that science and climate justice demand. But no, this is the conference of the perpetrators representing more than 1500 fossil fuel lobbyists given access to COP30. This UN climate conference promotes a new initiative called the global ethical stocktake focusing on moral, ethical and cultural elements of addressing the climate crisis, including addressing the impact on the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged, women, children and Indigenous Peoples. It is unethical to give access to these Big Polluters that continue a road of ecocide, terracide and genocide against Mother Earth, Father Sky, nature and humanity. It is immoral to call this the Indigenous Peoples COP when local Indigenous Peoples are forced to lift their voices to gain entry when the fossil fuel lobbyists can freely waltz in with no struggle.” <strong>Tom BK Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network </strong></p> <p>“COP after COP, the numbers speak for themselves; these are the conferences for the destroyers of our present and future to make business and continue setting the world, people, and life on fire. No matter where a COP takes place, whether in a petrostate or an Amazonian country, fossil fuel lobbyists have had a wide-open door to undermine climate action and justice. Corporate capture has not occurred in a vacuum over 30 years of conferences; the UNFCCC, States, and COP Presidents are all accomplices. If they want to be on the right side of history, they must Kick Big Polluters Out of COP30 now. This is a legal obligation to the people and the planet, and if they fail to do so, they will face legal consequences for their wrongful acts.” <strong>Nathalie Rengifo Alvarez, Campaña Que Paguen Los Contaminadores América Latina </strong></p> <p>“From the halls of the UNFCCC to our lands and territories, fossil fuel corporations are wrecking our communities and environment. Yet, this year at COP30, the red carpet is rolled out for thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists to roam the corridors. The impacts of this abhorrent corporate capture are felt the world over, with fossil fuel exploitation, extractivist mining, and false solutions putting peoples on the front lines of devastation. If we are to achieve climate justice, we must Kick Big Polluters Out.” <strong>Nerisha Baldevu, Friends of the Earth Africa</strong></p> <p>“At the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement we, the people, need to be consulted on how to close the ambition gap left by Parties to reach the Agreement’s central target of 1.5°C. Instead, feminists are once again outnumbered eight times by lobbyists, representing the fossil, exploitative system continuing petro-masculinities and patriarchy. Being invited to Belém in the state of Para means to us fighting industries that are exploiting territories, nature and the bodies of women and gender diverse folks and to lead us into a truly just and sustainable future.”<strong> Pat Bohland, LIFE, co-focal point of the Women and Gender Constituency</strong></p> <p>“The UNFCCC is in need of rehabilitation. This year’s check-up on who is in the room at the climate negotiation tested positive for corporate capture, reflecting the addiction and normalisation of fossil fuel presence in multilateral climate action despite their complicity in ecocide globally. To achieve a just transition, we must create the conditions by which fossil fuels can no longer have the social license to continue business as usual, making billions in profit, dwarfing the climate finance countries are scrambling to agree on. While local indigenous peoples struggled to enter the conference, fossil fuel lobbyists walk in freely. My generation deserves Just Transition policies that reflect what people and planet need, not what polluters' profits demand.” <strong>Pim Sullivan-Tailyour, UK Youth Climate Coalition </strong></p> <p>“A climate conference with more fossil fuel lobbyists than delegates from climate vulnerable nations – corporate capture at its best. It seems like a no-brainer that the people most affected by climate change must be at the core of climate negotiations, not the lobbyists of the industry that is most responsible for climate change. However, COP30 exemplifies the opposite. Allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to influence climate policies leads to false solutions and to continued pollution only, and the past 30 years have shown this. People need to be at the centre of the climate talks, not the corporations of the extractive industries.”<strong> Sara Fleischer, SOMO </strong></p> <p>“Another COP, same playbook: fossil fuel lobbyists are welcomed with a red carpet while communities suffering from the crisis are only heard after demanding their rights and challenging barriers to their participation. This is corporate capture, not climate governance. A process meant to protect people and planet cannot be shaped by the very industry driving the damage. We need to urgently reform the rules of climate negotiations: allow voting when consensus is weaponized, adopt enforceable conflict-of-interest rules, create real compliance and enforcement so promises have consequences, and protect civic space and human rights so people and science — not polluters— can accelerate the phaseout of fossil fuels and deliver real finance at scale. Reform isn’t procedural housekeeping—it’s climate action.” <strong>Lien Vandamme, Senior Campaigner on Human Rights and Climate Change at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)</strong></p> <p>“More than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists are flooding COP30 this year, turning a climate summit into a trade fair for polluters. It shows that the very same industries driving the climate crisis still hold power over the negotiations meant to solve it. As long as Big Polluters are allowed inside these talks ensuring they’re run in their interests, real solutions will remain out of reach. This shocking number only goes to show we need fossil free politics now more than ever. We need climate action led by the people, not polluters.” <strong>Nathan Stewart, Coordinator Fossil Free Politics</strong></p> <p>“COP30 appears to be a Conference of Polluters, not Parties. With more fossil fuel lobbyists than government delegates from the ten most climate vulnerable nations combined, it’s no wonder the global climate talks have failed for three decades to do what they should have done on day one. Unlike what the COP presidency has said, COP30 is not the defining business opportunity of our time. It’s the moment when world governments must finally end fossil fuels, and chart a path forward that will save millions of lives and ensure a livable planet. Until we Kick Big Polluters Out, we can expect the outcomes of COP30, and every COP after, to be written by the world’s largest polluters, all in the name of profit over people and the planet.”<strong> Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory</strong></p> <p>"We are 10 years on from the Paris Agreement, and two since nations agreed to end the fossil fuel era. Yet carbon pollution is still rising, putting a liveable and equitable future ever further out of reach. The reason is simple: fossil fuels. Every COP we allow dirty industry representatives to attend in their droves incurs a debt that will be paid in future climate disasters. They are a tiny minority of Earth's people; we are the vast majority. We need polluters out, people in at COP." <strong>Patrick Galey, Global Witness</strong></p> <p><em>“Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists in UN negotiation spaces where they don’t belong is still growing. More than ever, they are promoting “solutions” that are good for their business but not for the people and climate. CCS, hydrogen, biogas should be labelled as greenwashing for the expansion of oil and gas extraction still happening, and fossil fuel corporations should pay for the global impact of their business.” </em><strong>Elena Gerebizza, ReCommon</strong></p> <p>“COP30 is meant to be the ‘COP of truth’, but more than 1,500 lobbyists are continuing to flow the venue and insert themselves in national delegations, including Brazilian Big Polluters in the host country delegation. And more than half of all delegation members are withholding or obscuring their affiliations. If COP30 is indeed the COP of truth, the Presidency and the UNFCCC Secretariat should now commit to reviewing and strengthening participant disclosure rules ahead of future summits: it is time to ensure integrity and accountability to restore trust.” <strong>Brice Böhmer, Climate and Environment Lead at Transparency International</strong></p> <p>"The COP is massively flooded with around 1,500 representatives of the fossil fuel industry – like a river bursting its banks and sweeping everything away. As long as we cling to coal, oil, and gas, the 1.5-degree path will become increasingly distant, and the climate crisis will worsen year after year with tangible consequences for people and nature. It is particularly worrying that Germany is further cementing its dependence on fossil fuels with new, dirty LNG imports from the US – to the detriment of communities, the climate, and livelihoods on both sides of the Atlantic." <strong>Susann Scherbarth, Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND e.V.)</strong></p> <h3><a name="_lor9fqasblgz"></a><strong>###</strong></h3> <p><em>Kick Big Polluters Out is a coalition of more than 450 organisations across the globe united in demanding an end to the ability of Big Polluters to write the rules of climate action. Find more on the coalition and its demands</em><a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/demands"><em> here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <h3><a name="_vwtshqtqslst"></a><strong>Methodology</strong></h3> <p>Thanks to years of campaigning by Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) partners and constituencies, all participants registered to attend the COP30 climate talks in Brazil must declare the organisation they work for, the nature of their relationship to this organisation, their role, and the delegation they're part of. The latter can be an official country delegation (or party overflow), a UN body, an intergovernmental organisation, a non-government organisation, or a media institution.</p> <p>The UNFCCC published a provisional list of the participants at COP30 on 10 November 2025.To analyse the UNFCCC’s delegates list as quickly as possible, our team used a combination of manual classification and scripted automation. Our team classified each entry line by line, and we also used a script to check whether a lobbyist had been identified as a fossil fuel lobbyist in previous years. A team of fact-checkers then verifies the results to ensure they are accurate. </p> <p>In determining whether a delegate has any ties that would qualify them as a fossil fuel lobbyist, we only considered the information provided in the UNFCCC’s list. This includes both the delegation through which the individual is attending COP, and any further affiliation the delegate opted to disclose. If someone did not choose to explicitly state an affiliation to a fossil fuel company or fossil fuel-affiliated organisation in their application to be a delegate at this year’s COP, we were unable to classify them as a fossil fuel lobbyist. </p> <p>For the purposes of this analysis, we consider a fossil fuel lobbyist any individual delegate that represents an organisation or is a member of a delegation that can be reasonably assumed to have the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, or a particular fossil fuel company and its shareholders. For financial representatives, we included delegates from institutions that have provided significant financing to fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement, based on data from the Banking on Climate Chaos report.</p> <p>A full list of the 1602 fossil fuel lobbyists is available on request.<br> </p> <p><em>footnotes</em></p> <ol> <li>The top 10 most <a href="https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking/vulnerability">climate vulnerable nations</a> with delegations at COP30 are: Chad, Niger, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Guinea-Bissau, Sudan, Somalia, Tonga, Sierra Leone, and Eritrea.</li> <li>The top ten biggest trade associations in attendance representing the fossil fuel industry are: International Chamber of Commerce (148); Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (91); International Emissions Trading Association (60); Abeeólica (60); Brazilian National Confederation of Industry (41); Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (20); World Business Council for Sustainable Development (19); Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (15); Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (15); Federation of Industries of the State of Sao Paulo (14)</li> </ol> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/225-organisations-call-big-polluters-be-kicked-out-cop30" hreflang="en">225+ organisations call for Big Polluters to be kicked out of COP30</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flood-cop30-climate-talks-brazil-largest-ever-attendance-share" hreflang="en">Fossil fuel lobbyists flood COP30 climate talks in Brazil, with largest ever attendance share</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.12.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/climate-needs-fair-fast-and-funded-fossil-fuel-phase-out-so-why-did-eu-governments-roll-out" hreflang="en">The climate needs a fair, fast and funded fossil fuel phase-out, so why did EU governments roll out the red carpet for the oil and gas industry at COP30?</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Fossil fuel lobbyists flood COP30 climate talks in Brazil, with largest ever attendance share</h1> <p>Marcella Via — Fri, 14 Nov 2025 05:00:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> With one in every 25 COP30 attendees a fossil fuel lobbyist, massive industry presence intensifies calls to protect climate negotiations from corporate capture. </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/un-climate-talks" hreflang="en">UN climate talks</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>BELEM, BRAZIL [14th] November 2025:</strong> New analysis reveals more than 1600 fossil fuel lobbyists have been granted access to the COP30 climate talks in Belém, marking yet another year of overwhelming industry presence at crucial climate negotiations, according to the<a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/"> Kick Big Polluters Out</a> (KBPO) coalition.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The analysis reveals that fossil fuel lobbyists significantly outnumber almost every country delegation at COP30 – with only host country Brazil (3805), sending more people. Proportionally, this is a 12% increase from <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP29FossilFuelLobbyists">last year’s climate talks</a> in Baku, Azerbaijan, and is the largest concentration of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP since KBPO started analysing conference attendees. </p> <p>With one in every 25 participants in Belém representing the fossil fuel industry, the calls for an accountability framework to protect the talks from big polluters grow stronger.</p> <p>The Kick Big Polluters Out coalition analyzed the provisional list of participants at COP30 line-by-line. The findings include:</p> <ul> <li>Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official delegates from the Philippines by nearly 50 to 1 – even while the country is being hit by devastating typhoons as the UN climate talks are underway. Fossil fuel lobbyists sent more than 40 times the number of people than Jamaica, which is still reeling from Hurricane Melissa.</li> <li>Fossil fuel lobbyists have received two thirds more passes to COP30 than all the delegates from the 10 most<a href="https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/rankings/"> climate vulnerable nations</a> combined (1061), highlighting how industry presence continues to dwarf that of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis.</li> <li>Major trade associations remain a primary vehicle for fossil fuel influence, with the International Emissions Trading Association bringing 60 representatives, including delegates from oil and gas giants ExxonMobil, BP, and TotalEnergies.</li> <li>Behind-the-scenes access also remains a major channel for influence, with approximately 599 lobbyists gaining access through Party overflow badges that allow the individuals behind the scenes access to the inner workings of the negotiations.</li> <li>Several Global North countries included fossil fuel representatives within their official delegations – France brought 22 fossil fuel delegates, with five from TotalEnergies, including CEO Patrick Pouyanné; Japan’s delegation contained 33 fossil fuel lobbyists, among them Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Osaka Gas; and Norway snuck 17 into the talks, including six senior executives from its national oil and gas giant Equinor.</li> <li>Although attendance at COP30 is smaller overall than COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP28 in Dubai, the proportion of fossil fuel lobbyists has increased to nearly 1 in every 25 delegates present in Belem. </li> </ul> <p>Responding to the findings, Kick Big Polluters Out member Jax Bongon from IBON International in the Philippines said: <em>“It’s common sense that you cannot solve a problem by giving power to those who caused it. Yet three decades and 30 COPs later, more than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists are roaming the climate talks as if they belong here. It is infuriating to watch their influence deepen year after year, making a mockery of the process and of the communities suffering its consequences. Just days after devastating floods and supertyphoons in the Philippines, and amid worsening droughts, heatwaves, and displacement across the Global South, we see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives and undermine any hope of truly addressing the climate emergency. COP30 promises to be an ‘Implementation COP,’ yet it has so far failed to implement even a basic and long-overdue demand of kicking Big Polluters out of a conference meant to address the crisis they created.”</em></p> <p>The KBPO findings come as 2025 is set to become one of the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2025-on-track-to-be-second-or-third-warmest-year-on-record/">hottest years on record</a>, with climate disasters intensifying worldwide and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reaching unprecedented levels. Many of the fossil fuel corporations sending significant numbers of lobbyists to COP30 are also directly enabling the ongoing genocide of Palestine and systemic violence around the world. Despite growing calls for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels, the industry continues to expand operations, <a href="https://oilchange.org/news/press-release-oil-gas-decarbonization-charter/">with nearly $250 billion approved for new oil and gas projects since COP29</a>.</p> <p>Some KBPO members drew parallels between fossil fuel industry presence at COP and fossil fueled violence around the world. <em>“The fossil fuel industry and the Israel colonial regime are two sides of the same coin of destruction,"</em> said Ana Sánchez of Global Energy Embargo for Palestine (GEEP). <em>“From oil majors that fuel warplanes to an apartheid regime that flattens cities and ecosystems, both are polluters of land, air, and life itself. Israel’s genocidal machine runs on the same crude that’s burning our planet. At COP30, we cannot talk about ending fossil fuels while welcoming states and corporations that weaponize them for genocide. There is no climate justice without Palestine liberation. Kick all Big Polluters Out, kick Israel out.”</em></p> <p>The outsized fossil fuel industry presence in Belém threatens the stated goals of COP30, which Brazil has positioned as a critical moment for implementing the Paris Agreement and scaling up climate finance. This contradiction further strengthens the demand to ensure <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/Release-Polluter-Free-COP30">Polluter-free COPs</a> and establish <a href="https://corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Joint-civil-society-submission-on-COI-Aug-17-2022_.pdf">formal safeguards </a>against polluter influence.</p> <p>Thanks to sustained civil society campaigning, COP30 is the first COP where all non-government participants are expected to publicly disclose <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP30-next-steps-KBPO">who is funding their participation</a> and to confirm their individual objectives are in alignment with those of the UNFCCC. This information is made public for the world to see, but does not apply to those on government badges. This is a concerning oversight, given how this research shows that 164 fossil fuel lobbyists are gaining access through government badges. </p> <p><em>“At the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, we, the people, need to be consulted on how to close the ambition gap left by Parties to reach the Agreement’s central target of 1.5°C,"</em> said KBPO member Pat Bohland, LIFE, co-focal point of the Women and Gender Constituency. <em>“Instead, feminists are once again outnumbered eight times by lobbyists, representing the fossil, exploitative system continuing petro-masculinities and patriarchy. Being invited to Belém in the state of Para means to us fighting industries that are exploiting territories, nature and the bodies of women and gender diverse folks and to lead us into a truly just and sustainable future.”</em></p> <p>The number of fossil fuel representatives at UN climate talks has remained consistently high, with the industry present since the negotiations began. These findings reinforce the urgent need to protect the UN's climate negotiations by establishing clear conflict of interest policies and accountability measures, with countries collectively representing over 70% of the world's population having requested these conflicts of interest be addressed.</p> <p><em>“Since we are not in a real and just transition but rather in the expansion of a grim energy model that deepens the causes of the climate environment crisis, the tentacles of extractive corporations are spreading across discussion tables and decision-making spaces, contributing to an irreparable climate inaction,” said Liliana Buitrago, Pacto Ecosocial del Sur. “In a sprawling act that spans our territories, it reaches everyday life, prioritizing insatiable profit over the care needed to sustain the weaving of life.” </em></p> <p><strong>Additional quotes from KBPO members:</strong></p> <p>“Fossil fuel companies continue to lead us into a climate abyss. Not only are they responsible for a historic climate debt with the Global South, but this debt continues to accumulate and grow steadily. Governments are their accomplices. For 30 years, climate change summits have been an ideal stage for oil companies to clean up their image, do business, and find new ways to get away with environmental crimes. Today, instead of transitioning to post-oil societies, they want to extract every last drop of fossil fuels to continue feeding the capitalist system and genocidal wars.” <strong>Ivonne Yanez, Accion Ecologica, Ecuador</strong></p> <p>“More than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists have flooded COP30 this year, the same way their greed causes floods in our lands and our homes every year. Every fossil fuel lobbyist's entry into UNFCCC is a betrayal of the process, as they are the polluters who caused this crisis and yet are given front row seats to decide our very future. We know that year after year they come to climate talks to protect their profits, to push for fossil fuels, carbon markets, and other false solutions that keep extractivism destroying our communities alive. The COP should be a space for peoples solutions and not a playground for polluters.” <strong>Rachitaa Gupta, Global Coordinator, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice</strong></p> <p>"COP30 has become a marketplace for corporate greenwashing, not a platform for climate justice. Global climate talks are merely continuing the legacy of climate colonialism, by allowing corporations, investors and Global North nations to profit from destruction while silencing those most affected. Behind the pledges are still false climate solutions like carbon markets, blue economy schemes and nature-based offsets that worsen inequality and perpetuate the same cycle of power and profit. Meanwhile, women, indigenous peoples and local communities in the Global South are at the receiving end of a crisis they did not create. A just and equitable transition must begin with accountability for historical and ongoing emissions, as affirmed by the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities, and by centreing community-led, gender-just systems such as agroecology. There is no other way but to reclaim the right of peoples and communities to achieve real climate justice." <strong>Ranjana Giri, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)</strong></p> <p>“The NDCs at this COP30 were supposed to be the ones to align with the 1.5⁰ C climate limit that science and climate justice demand. But no, this is the conference of the perpetrators representing more than 1500 fossil fuel lobbyists given access to COP30. This UN climate conference promotes a new initiative called the global ethical stocktake focusing on moral, ethical and cultural elements of addressing the climate crisis, including addressing the impact on the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged, women, children and Indigenous Peoples. It is unethical to give access to these Big Polluters that continue a road of ecocide, terracide and genocide against Mother Earth, Father Sky, nature and humanity. It is immoral to call this the Indigenous Peoples COP when local Indigenous Peoples are forced to lift their voices to gain entry when the fossil fuel lobbyists can freely waltz in with no struggle.” <strong>Tom BK Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network </strong></p> <p>“COP after COP, the numbers speak for themselves; these are the conferences for the destroyers of our present and future to make business and continue setting the world, people, and life on fire. No matter where a COP takes place, whether in a petrostate or an Amazonian country, fossil fuel lobbyists have had a wide-open door to undermine climate action and justice. Corporate capture has not occurred in a vacuum over 30 years of conferences; the UNFCCC, States, and COP Presidents are all accomplices. If they want to be on the right side of history, they must Kick Big Polluters Out of COP30 now. This is a legal obligation to the people and the planet, and if they fail to do so, they will face legal consequences for their wrongful acts.” <strong>Nathalie Rengifo Alvarez, Campaña Que Paguen Los Contaminadores América Latina </strong></p> <p>“From the halls of the UNFCCC to our lands and territories, fossil fuel corporations are wrecking our communities and environment. Yet, this year at COP30, the red carpet is rolled out for thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists to roam the corridors. The impacts of this abhorrent corporate capture are felt the world over, with fossil fuel exploitation, extractivist mining, and false solutions putting peoples on the front lines of devastation. If we are to achieve climate justice, we must Kick Big Polluters Out.” <strong>Nerisha Baldevu, Friends of the Earth Africa</strong></p> <p>“At the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement we, the people, need to be consulted on how to close the ambition gap left by Parties to reach the Agreement’s central target of 1.5°C. Instead, feminists are once again outnumbered eight times by lobbyists, representing the fossil, exploitative system continuing petro-masculinities and patriarchy. Being invited to Belém in the state of Para means to us fighting industries that are exploiting territories, nature and the bodies of women and gender diverse folks and to lead us into a truly just and sustainable future.”<strong> Pat Bohland, LIFE, co-focal point of the Women and Gender Constituency</strong></p> <p>“The UNFCCC is in need of rehabilitation. This year’s check-up on who is in the room at the climate negotiation tested positive for corporate capture, reflecting the addiction and normalisation of fossil fuel presence in multilateral climate action despite their complicity in ecocide globally. To achieve a just transition, we must create the conditions by which fossil fuels can no longer have the social license to continue business as usual, making billions in profit, dwarfing the climate finance countries are scrambling to agree on. While local indigenous peoples struggled to enter the conference, fossil fuel lobbyists walk in freely. My generation deserves Just Transition policies that reflect what people and planet need, not what polluters' profits demand.” <strong>Pim Sullivan-Tailyour, UK Youth Climate Coalition </strong></p> <p>“A climate conference with more fossil fuel lobbyists than delegates from climate vulnerable nations – corporate capture at its best. It seems like a no-brainer that the people most affected by climate change must be at the core of climate negotiations, not the lobbyists of the industry that is most responsible for climate change. However, COP30 exemplifies the opposite. Allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to influence climate policies leads to false solutions and to continued pollution only, and the past 30 years have shown this. People need to be at the centre of the climate talks, not the corporations of the extractive industries.”<strong> Sara Fleischer, SOMO </strong></p> <p>“Another COP, same playbook: fossil fuel lobbyists are welcomed with a red carpet while communities suffering from the crisis are only heard after demanding their rights and challenging barriers to their participation. This is corporate capture, not climate governance. A process meant to protect people and planet cannot be shaped by the very industry driving the damage. We need to urgently reform the rules of climate negotiations: allow voting when consensus is weaponized, adopt enforceable conflict-of-interest rules, create real compliance and enforcement so promises have consequences, and protect civic space and human rights so people and science — not polluters— can accelerate the phaseout of fossil fuels and deliver real finance at scale. Reform isn’t procedural housekeeping—it’s climate action.” <strong>Lien Vandamme, Senior Campaigner on Human Rights and Climate Change at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)</strong></p> <p>“More than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists are flooding COP30 this year, turning a climate summit into a trade fair for polluters. It shows that the very same industries driving the climate crisis still hold power over the negotiations meant to solve it. As long as Big Polluters are allowed inside these talks ensuring they’re run in their interests, real solutions will remain out of reach. This shocking number only goes to show we need fossil free politics now more than ever. We need climate action led by the people, not polluters.” <strong>Nathan Stewart, Coordinator Fossil Free Politics</strong></p> <p>“COP30 appears to be a Conference of Polluters, not Parties. With more fossil fuel lobbyists than government delegates from the ten most climate vulnerable nations combined, it’s no wonder the global climate talks have failed for three decades to do what they should have done on day one. Unlike what the COP presidency has said, COP30 is not the defining business opportunity of our time. It’s the moment when world governments must finally end fossil fuels, and chart a path forward that will save millions of lives and ensure a livable planet. Until we Kick Big Polluters Out, we can expect the outcomes of COP30, and every COP after, to be written by the world’s largest polluters, all in the name of profit over people and the planet.”<strong> Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory</strong></p> <p>"We are 10 years on from the Paris Agreement, and two since nations agreed to end the fossil fuel era. Yet carbon pollution is still rising, putting a liveable and equitable future ever further out of reach. The reason is simple: fossil fuels. Every COP we allow dirty industry representatives to attend in their droves incurs a debt that will be paid in future climate disasters. They are a tiny minority of Earth's people; we are the vast majority. We need polluters out, people in at COP." <strong>Patrick Galey, Global Witness</strong></p> <p><em>“Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists in UN negotiation spaces where they don’t belong is still growing. More than ever, they are promoting “solutions” that are good for their business but not for the people and climate. CCS, hydrogen, biogas should be labelled as greenwashing for the expansion of oil and gas extraction still happening, and fossil fuel corporations should pay for the global impact of their business.” </em><strong>Elena Gerebizza, ReCommon</strong></p> <p>“COP30 is meant to be the ‘COP of truth’, but more than 1,500 lobbyists are continuing to flow the venue and insert themselves in national delegations, including Brazilian Big Polluters in the host country delegation. And more than half of all delegation members are withholding or obscuring their affiliations. If COP30 is indeed the COP of truth, the Presidency and the UNFCCC Secretariat should now commit to reviewing and strengthening participant disclosure rules ahead of future summits: it is time to ensure integrity and accountability to restore trust.” <strong>Brice Böhmer, Climate and Environment Lead at Transparency International</strong></p> <p>"The COP is massively flooded with around 1,500 representatives of the fossil fuel industry – like a river bursting its banks and sweeping everything away. As long as we cling to coal, oil, and gas, the 1.5-degree path will become increasingly distant, and the climate crisis will worsen year after year with tangible consequences for people and nature. It is particularly worrying that Germany is further cementing its dependence on fossil fuels with new, dirty LNG imports from the US – to the detriment of communities, the climate, and livelihoods on both sides of the Atlantic." <strong>Susann Scherbarth, Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND e.V.)</strong></p> <h3><a name="_lor9fqasblgz"></a><strong>###</strong></h3> <p><em>Kick Big Polluters Out is a coalition of more than 450 organisations across the globe united in demanding an end to the ability of Big Polluters to write the rules of climate action. Find more on the coalition and its demands</em><a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/demands"><em> here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="cnfpbr/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +44 7969 665189</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <h3><a name="_4wim4tppk7fh"></a><strong>Notes to the editor</strong></h3> <ul> <li>The top 10 most <a href="https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking/vulnerability">climate vulnerable nations</a> with delegations at COP30 are: Chad, Niger, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Guinea-Bissau, Sudan, Somalia, Tonga, Sierra Leone, and Eritrea.</li> <li>The top ten biggest trade associations in attendance representing the fossil fuel industry are: International Chamber of Commerce (148); Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (91); International Emissions Trading Association (60); Abeeólica (60); Brazilian National Confederation of Industry (41); Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (20); World Business Council for Sustainable Development (19); Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (15); Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (15); Federation of Industries of the State of Sao Paulo (14)</li> </ul> <h3><a name="_vwtshqtqslst"></a><strong>Methodology</strong></h3> <p><em>**An anonymised list of the fossil fuel lobbyists at COP30 is available </em><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YtyRQuvN3vvMKoqgmFwI0AVlEZB7tAAt/edit?rtpof=true&sd=true&gid=2011478187#gid=2011478187"><em>here</em></a><em>**</em></p> <p>Thanks to years of campaigning by Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) partners and constituencies, all participants registered to attend the COP30 climate talks in Brazil must declare the organisation they work for, the nature of their relationship to this organisation, their role, and the delegation they're part of. The latter can be an official country delegation (or party overflow), a UN body, an intergovernmental organisation, a non-government organisation, or a media institution.</p> <p>The UNFCCC published a provisional list of the participants at COP30 on 10 November 2025.To analyse the UNFCCC’s delegates list as quickly as possible, our team used a combination of manual classification and scripted automation. Our team classified each entry line by line, and we also used a script to check whether a lobbyist had been identified as a fossil fuel lobbyist in previous years. A team of fact-checkers then verifies the results to ensure they are accurate. </p> <p>In determining whether a delegate has any ties that would qualify them as a fossil fuel lobbyist, we only considered the information provided in the UNFCCC’s list. This includes both the delegation through which the individual is attending COP, and any further affiliation the delegate opted to disclose. If someone did not choose to explicitly state an affiliation to a fossil fuel company or fossil fuel-affiliated organisation in their application to be a delegate at this year’s COP, we were unable to classify them as a fossil fuel lobbyist. </p> <p>For the purposes of this analysis, we consider a fossil fuel lobbyist any individual delegate that represents an organisation or is a member of a delegation that can be reasonably assumed to have the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, or a particular fossil fuel company and its shareholders. For financial representatives, we included delegates from institutions that have provided significant financing to fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement, based on data from the Banking on Climate Chaos report.</p> <p>A full list of the 1602 fossil fuel lobbyists is available on request.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/225-organisations-call-big-polluters-be-kicked-out-cop30" hreflang="en">225+ organisations call for Big Polluters to be kicked out of COP30</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>There are now more Big Tech lobbyists than MEPs</h1> <p>Joana — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 14:34:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New episode of EU Watchdog Radio </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Do you know how much money Big Tech is spending on lobbying in Brussels? How has this amount been increasing? On what is the money being funnelled to and what can we do about it? Listen to our new episode to find out!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In this episode, we talk to CEO's researcher Bram Vranken about a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">new report he has just published with German NGO Lobby Control</a> on Big Tech and it’s lobby budget. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>By Big Tech we are referring to the main technological companies in the world: Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft, also referred to by the French acronym GAFAM - where the F stood for Facebook, now called Meta. The research uncovered that there are now more Big Tech lobbyists operating in Brussels than there are members of the European Parliament. Additionally, their lobby spending has grown accordingly, and since 2021 they’ve declared to have increased their spending by 55.6%.</p> <p>The sheer muscle power these companies have to target legislation and to lobby decision makers is unheard of and it is worth reminding ourselves that Big Tech’s lobby power only further entrenches its hold over key aspects of society, from the information people consume to the digital infrastructure on which we depend.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Who we are</strong></h3> <p>This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech & chemical companies, the financial sector & public investment banks, trade, energy & climate, scientific research and much more…</p> <p>You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Blog</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/blog/EU-watchdog-radio" hreflang="en">EU Watchdog Radio</a></div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Bayer in Brazil - big polluter, big lobby spender</h1> <p>Hans Van Schaaren — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 07:29:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Sponsoring COP30 to greenwash toxic agribusiness model </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">For agrochemical giant Bayer the COP30 climate conference in Brazil is a golden opportunity to greenwash its image. And it is willing to spend a lot of money to capitalise on this moment. Bayer is one of the major sponsors of the <a href="https://www.embrapa.br/en/cop30/eventos-na-agri">official AgriZone of COP30</a>, and one of the most powerful actors in Brazilian agribusiness. The company aims to convince people that the agricultural sector's impact on the climate crisis is positive. But Bayer and its agribusiness partners are actually <a href="https://seeg.eco.br/">the main drivers of climate change in Brazil</a>, as well as a massive increase in the use of toxic pesticides, and of rainforest destruction. This economically powerful sector is in dire need of some ‘uplifting’ Public Relations, and won't miss the opportunity for valuable greenwashing that COP30 provides.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR"><em><strong>This article was co-written by </strong></em><a href="https://www.cbgnetwork.org/"><em><strong>Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG)</strong></em></a></p> <p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Download </strong><a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/BAYER-COP30-Final.pdf"><strong>Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong> </p> <p lang="fr-FR"><br>With its slogan ‘<a href="https://www.bayer.com/en/strategy/our-mission-strategy">health for all’ and ‘hunger for none</a>’ COP30 will be "an important milestone for Bayer, especially as it is taking place in Brazil, the company's second-largest market worldwide", <a href="https://www.politico.com/sponsored/2025/09/10-reasons-why-the-climate-conference-COP30-is-so-critical/">announced the Leverkusen-based multinational</a>. The company's Global PR manager, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-m%C3%BCller-13234a1/">Max Müller, said</a>: “With a fantastic team, we will be present, stimulate discussions, present ideas and show how innovation and technology have changed the way food security can be achieved in a sustainable manner."</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer is desperately in need of some good PR, after buying Monsanto (‘the most hated company in the world’) in 2018 for 53 billion euro. This led to <a href="https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/06/is-bayer-losing-the-roundup-fight/">an avalanche of litigation</a> on cancer and glyphosate in the US, costing the company at least another 10 billion euro. COP30 thus offers an opportunity to change the narrative about its operations.</p> <p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Buying influence: huge global lobby budgets for diamond sponsor at COP30 </strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">According to its <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/bayer-transparency-report.pdf">own annual report</a>, Bayer’s total global lobby budget in 2023 was 50 million euro. In addition the company also spends over 25 million on ‘trade association fees’ worldwide - meaning membership of umbrella organisations such as Croplife, chemical lobby association Cefic and many others. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer's largest spending was in the US, where it invested <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/bayer-transparency-report.pdf">no less than 18 million euro i</a>n lobbying, mainly to <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/04/no-impunity-agrochemical-corporations">weaken legal protection</a> for consumers of its products. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">On a ‘global level’ (meaning lobbying international institutions and the UN), Bayer spent 17 million euro. Europe saw the third largest spend, -11 million euro (of which 3 million was spent in Germany). In 2024 Bayer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/bayer-ag?rid=3523776801-85">spent a bit less on EU lobbying</a> – only 6.5 million. Notably, since the announcement of the EU Farm to Fork strategy and subsequent pesticide reduction targets, for the past four years Bayer has spent at minimum 6 million euro (sometimes more) to defend its business interests at European level. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">In its first ‘Political Advocacy Transparency Report’, published in December 2023, <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/bayer-transparency-report-interaktiv-rg-v011.pdf">Bayer declared spending €49 million worldwide on lobbying (including the pharmaceutical side of its operations), as well as €26 million on trade association fees.</a> The report shows Bayer spent a staggering €75 million on lobbying in 2022, with at least €13.5 million spent in Europe.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Spending a bit less last year (relatively speaking!) does not mean Bayer was not active at EU level: out of <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/bayer-ag?rid=3523776801-85#data-card-data-financial">82 high level meetings with the European Commission</a> in total over the past decade, no less than 26 took place this year. Bayer is also represented in various expert groups, and special groups in the European Parliament. Last year ir also received €363,000 in EU grants for research purposes. And as part of its “series of communication activities” the company is “sponsoring <a href="https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/sustainable-edge/">content and events organised by Politico</a> under its "Drive sustainable progress" campaign. </p> <p>Bayer’s self reported Brazilian lobby budget amounted to $1.5 million in 2023. The money seems well spent: a <a href="https://ojoioeotrigo.com.br/2024/08/sete-fatos-sobre-o-lobby-dos-agrotoxicos/">2024 study</a> by investigative journalist consortium ‘O Joio e o Trigo’ and ‘Fiquem Sabendo’ revealed that the pesticide industry in Brazil secured a whopping 752 lobby meetings with government officials between October 2022 and July 2024. Bayer is the front-runner in this lobby record - according to the research Bayer lobbyists met with government officials 52 times between August 2022 and October 2024. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-IE"><strong>Reaping rewards and investing in political connections in Brazil</strong></p> <p>The two most-lobbied government members were the Secretary of Farming Defense Carlos Goulart, a laggard from the Bolsonaro government, who was previously Director for Plant Health and Agricultural Inputs, and Minister of Agriculture Carlos Fávaro - a former soy producer in the State of Mato Grosso. During Goulart's tenure, the department approved the record release of over 2.1 thousand chemical substances. Despite the better green credentials of the new president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government, which took over from far right president Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian agrobusiness lobby is still very much in control.</p> <p>This is also reflected at COP 30 in Belém. Bayer is the ‘diamond sponsor’ of AgriZone, which both the ministry of Agriculture and Big Agro want to use to spread ‘a positive message about the agricultural sector in the climate agenda’. </p> <p>Previously, at COP29, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/abagbrasil/">Associação Brasileira do Agronegócio</a> (ABAG – the Brazilian Agribusiness Association) <a href="https://abag.com.br/cop29-o-potencial-da-agricultura-para-responder-aos-desafios-da-crise-climatica/">topshot Roberto Azevêd</a> said: “No other sector besides agriculture can sequester carbon. Are we going to use it or are we going to continue to blame it?” This was an interesting remark, considering that <a href="https://portal.datagro.com/en/agribusiness/12/1037445/agriculture-reduced-emissions-by-07-in-2024">a recent publication indicates that</a> "agriculture becomes responsible for 42% of Brazil's net (climate) pollution in 2024". This is when one also take into account the ‘land use’ figures.</p> <p>The Brazilian state-owned agricultural research company Embrapa, which is responsible for the COP30 AgriZone, clearly has no qualms about the agro-industry being deeply involved. <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/10/cop30-agribusiness-to-contest-climate-crisis-narrative-at-the-privately-funded-agrizone/">Reporter Brasil recently highlighted how</a> the CNA (the <a href="https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/agro.br-english">Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazi</a>l, which represents the Big Meat industry) is a “master” sponsor of the AgriZone, at the price of R$2.5 million (about half a million euro). Nestlé and Bayer are “diamond” sponsors, for R$1 million each (around 200,000 euro). </p> <p>Bayer, along with six other companies, finances the so-called <a href="https://sbc.cnpso.embrapa.br/pt/">Soja Baixo Carbono program</a> (‘low carbon soy’) coordinated by ‘Embrapa Soja’, with an investment of R$14.7 million (roughly 3 million euro). Critics point to potential conflicts of interests between state-owned Embrapa and agro-multinationals such as Bayer. </p> <p>The company is also reaping the rewards of cultivating political connections in Brazil. It is investing significantly to present - in close harmony with ABAG - <a href="https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/meio-ambiente/noticia/2025-08/climate-crisis-agribusiness-positions-itself-part-solution">the messag</a>e that its business is part of the solution and not at the root of many of Brazil's environmental problems. <a href="//reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/10/cop30-agribusiness-to-contest-climate-crisis-narrative-at-the-privately-funded-agrizone/">Reporter Brasil writes</a>: “For critics, this narrative is misleading. While promoting “green” technologies, these companies and entities would be linked to the expansion of deforestation, the intensive use of pesticides and the emission of methane by livestock.” Marília Albiero, from ACT Health Promotion said: “Many of those who present themselves as part of the solution are the same that fuel structural problems.”</p> <p>For example, the Big Meat lobby has been pushing for the easing of environmental legislation, according to Report Brasil, and has “questioned the proposals for the agricultural sector contained in the <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/09/ministerio-meio-ambiente-agro-nega-realidade-clima/">Climate Plan</a>, a document of the federal government with goals to reduce deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.” </p> <p>According to <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/10/posicionamento-da-embrapa/">a reply by Embrapa</a>, the AgriZone will be “a public and free space, open to civil society.” The space will promote “cultural demonstrations, exhibitions, technological showcases for family farming and food center with appreciation of regional gastronomy provided by small local entrepreneurs.” </p> <p lang="nl-NL">Alan Tygel, campaigner from Brazilian NGO Contras Agrotoxico's: "We cannot accept any illusion about this COP30. The environmental crisis caused by the capitalist system will not be resolved by governments captured by corporations that profit from the appropriation of nature's resources. The funding of "sustainable agriculture zone" by companies like Bayer and Nestlé, and the presence of Syngenta representatives in the Swiss delegation, are proof of this COP's failure. Either the solutions will be built by the people, or there will be no solution.”</p> <p lang="nl-NL"> </p> <blockquote><p lang="nl-NL">"The funding of "sustainable agriculture zone" by companies like Bayer and Nestlé, and the presence of Syngenta representatives in the Swiss delegation, are proof of this COP's failure."</p> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Image by Nora Simone Capa Challco, Perú</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Visiones de la agroecología para el buenvivir</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-IE"><strong>The tight grip of agribusiness over the Brazilian state: COP30 shapes up to be a monumental exercise in greenwashing</strong></p> <p>The COP 30 AgriZone was originally a much bolder idea. Conceived at the previous COP29 in Baku, it would have been a so-called counter <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/01/com-convite-a-trump-politicos-e-ruralistas-preparam-cop-do-agro-no-para/">“Agro COP,</a> which would be held in Marabá (PA), 500 kilometers from Belém, parallel to the UN conference.” According to researchers, this counter-event was eventually canceled due to pressure from the state government of Para, who already had to deal with organisinbg a Climate COP. The AgriZone will probably do the job even more efficiently and in a 'positive' way.</p> <p>NGO Grain <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/11/03/agribusiness-gets-its-turn-to-co-opt-the-climate-cop-in-brazil/">wrote an </a>O<a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/11/03/agribusiness-gets-its-turn-to-co-opt-the-climate-cop-in-brazil/">p</a>-e<a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/11/03/agribusiness-gets-its-turn-to-co-opt-the-climate-cop-in-brazil/">d in Brasil de Fato</a> outlining how Brazil’s agricultural research agency, Embrapa “is already partnering with corporations to rebrand Brazilian agribusiness through programmes like ‘net zero dairy farming’ with Nestlé and ‘low-carbon soy’ with Bayer. Even the Brazilian ministry responsible for small-scale farming, which is not implementing agrarian reform because of a supposed lack of funds, is a contributing sponsor. A few other governments will be participating too, namely Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the UK.”</p> <p>Grain confirms that “agribusiness exercises a tight grip over the Brazilian state, whether governed by the left or right, Lula or Bolsonaro”, and says it is “no surprise that this year’s COP is shaping up to be a monumental exercise in agro-greenwashing”. </p> <p>That is not all though: “the objective is not just to greenwash agribusiness. Climate COPs have become deal-making venues, on par with Davos, and this year the Brazilian agribusiness juggernaut has one huge deal on the table. At COP28 in Dubai, with Brazil already picked to host COP30, the Brazilian government announced its plans for a massive, $100 billion public-private partnership to convert 40 million hectares of degraded pastures into monocultures of soybeans and other export crops. It claims that the farming of these crops will build back carbon in the soil and that corporations can invest as a way to offset their fossil fuel emissions.”</p> <p>As the Brazilian <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/10/integra-posicionamentos-enviados-reportagem-agrizone-cop30-2/">Ministry of Agriculture wrote in a response to Reporter Brasil</a>: “The AgriZone strengthens the ability to transfer knowledge and bring society and the productive sector closer to technological solutions that promote the sustainability and competitiveness of Brazilian agriculture.” </p> <p lang="nl-NL">That is precisely what Bayer, ABAG, CNA and other agribusiness actors like to hear – the Brazilian government backing up its carefully crafted greenwash and spin.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Bayer's long history in Brazil</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">This year Bayer’s Global PR manager, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-m%C3%BCller-13234a1/">Max Müller</a>, became <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23siebayerebom&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED&sid=rFT">co-chair of the German delegation</a> in the ‘<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23brazil&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED">Brazil</a>-<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23germany&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED">Germany</a> Initiative for Cooperation in <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23agribusiness&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED">Agribusiness</a> and innovation’. He rejoiced, writing: “<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23siebayerebom&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED">SieBayereBom</a> is a phrase with a long tradition in Brazil and for more than 125 years, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23teambayer&origin=HASH_TAG_FROM_FEED">team Bayer</a> has been present in this nation and continent.” </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Müller will be doing the job along with <a href="https://revistacultivar.com/index.php/news/Abag-elects-board-of-directors-for-the-2026-2027-biennium">Ingo Ploger</a>, the newly elected president of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/abagbrasil/">Associação Brasileira do Agronegócio (ABAG)</a>. This <a href="https://abag.com.br/institucional-abag-historia/">Brazilian agricultural association,</a> which has around 80 members (including many multinationals), has been a powerhouse of the agribusiness lobby in Brazil for the past three decades. Bayer also has a seat on the board of ABAG. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">With <a href="https://www.bayer.com.br/pt/perfil-e-estrutura">6,500 employees in Brazil</a>, Bayer is one of the largest agribusiness employers in the country. The company has worked in Brazil for more than a century, helping to shape the development of agriculture into its current format. From the 1960’s to the 1980’s, much like in the rest of Latin America, Bayer aligned with Brazil’s authoritarian regime. It supported the wholesale adoption of an agrotoxic food production system to create cash crops for export, with major effects on the environment and communities.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">During the military dictatorship, Bayer helped create the <a href="https://www.scielo.br/j/hcsm/a/5H6kY84N7SqzwwrLps45gPw/?format=pdf&lang=en">National Agricultural Defensives Program</a> (Andef), which to this day is an enthusiastic supporter of the highly pesticide-intensive agricultural model. At the same time that other countries banned organochlorate insecticides such as DDT, Brazil massively expanded their use. One of the crops that was (and still is) most heavily sprayed with chemicals is soy. This crop became synonymous with cattle (which it fed) and the resultant deforestation in Pantanal, Mato Grosso and the Amazon.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">According to Karen Friedrich, researcher from Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz) and member of the Health and Environment Group of Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva, since the military dicatatorshop <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/02/15/agrotoxicos-foram-feitos-para-matar-diz-pesquisadora-da-fiocruz/">Brazil is a Pollution Paradise</a>. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Latin America accounts for around 30% of global agricultural revenue for Bayer's. Brazil is the second most important country, behind only the United States, <a href="https://exame.com/negocios/o-agro-brasileiro-e-sim-sustentavel-diz-ceo-da-bayer-crop-science-america-latina/">according to Maurício Rodrigues, CEO of </a>Bayer<a href="https://exame.com/negocios/o-agro-brasileiro-e-sim-sustentavel-diz-ceo-da-bayer-crop-science-america-latina/">'s Latin American agricultural division</a>. “In terms of growth potential, Brazil is often the leading country” said the president during a podcast.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Graphic by Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System Brazil (SEEG)</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Bayer, a global contributor to climate change</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Agriculture is the sector with the highest <a href="https://seeg.eco.br/">responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil</a>. According to <a href="https://plataforma.seeg.eco.br/?yearRange%5B0%5D=1990&yearRange%5B1%5D=2024&sector%5B0%5D=477&category=&emissionType%5B0%5D=1&gas=8&groupBy=Sector&rankBy=State">the latest figures of SEEG</a> it is responsible for direct emissions of 29%, as well as contributing largely to the staggering 43% of emissions attributed to land use change - mostly connected to clearing of land for agriculture and farming purposes. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Brazil is one of the ten largest emitters in the world - 631 MT of CO2-eq emissions are directly connected to agriculture in Brazil. This is mostly due to nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides and limestone used to correct soil acidity, burning of crop residues, methane released by cattle and other ruminants, and the deforestation of carbon dioxide-binding forests.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">At Bayer itself, it is also the agricultural division that produces the majority of the company's CO2 emissions. In 2024, these amounted to around three million tonnes, according to the company’s own estimates. Bayer’s annual report states: "Our raw material extraction, including processing and further processing for the manufacture of crop science pesticide precursors, is particularly energy-intensive – which is why this division accounts for the largest share of our greenhouse gas emissions."</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Specifically, this refers to the production of glyphosate, because, <a href="http://www.stopglyphosate.eu/">among other issues</a> with this toxic chemical, the herbicide is a veritable climate killer. Phosphorus, which is used to make glyphosate, can only be extracted from phosphorite under extremely high temperatures. The furnace at the American Soda Springs site, for example, has to reach a temperature of around 1,500 degrees Celsius, which requires a corresponding amount of energy.</p> <p>Bayer’s climate wager, as reported in a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/BAYER%20PROFILE-compressed.pdf">2024 report by Corporate Europe O</a>bservatory, is to reframe and re-label “existing activities under a new 'green' or 'climate friendly' package”, thereby “misrepresenting their level of climate action and even managing to get financial support for their sleight of hand.” We can witness this clever magic trick once again in the run-up to COP-30 in Belém. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">On the core issue for COP30 – greenhouse gas emissions - it might appear like a mission impossible for Bayer to depict itself as ‘climate friendly’. And yet, it seems the company has invested its substantial lobby budget and political influence very effectively, since it is managing to play a central role at COP30. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">One reason for this success is that Bayer and others began preparations early. The agribusiness corporations got down to work quickly, and carefully laid the groundwork for Belém at COP28 and COP29 in Azerbaijan. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Writing about the agribiz presence in the Brazilian COP29 delegation DeSmog pointed out that ‘the Brazilian government brought in 35 agriculture lobbyists – the highest of any country – including more than 20 representatives of meat companies JBS, BRF and Marfrig, as well as powerful industry groups such as the Association of Brazilian Beef Exporters (ABIEC). […] Two powerful pesticide companies, Bayer and Syngenta, which have also <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/21/sowing-doubt-how-big-ag-is-delaying-sustainable-farming-in-europe/">lobbied</a> against green reforms, also came to Baku, as part of the country delegation of Brazil.’</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The Brazilian chapter of Greenpeace sharply criticised this. But the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change played down the issue: ‘The presence of representatives from associations and companies in the agricultural sector and other sectors does not affect Brazil's climate target.’ Bayer itself did not understand all the fuss; for them lobbying is simply “an essential part of the democratic process” </p> <p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Back in Brazil, agribusiness mobilises to distract attention from its emissions</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Back in Brazil, preparations continued apace. The influential Brazilian ‘<a href="https://cebds.org/en/"><em>Business Council for Sustainable Development’ (CEBDS)</em></a> – the national counterpart of the international greenwashing vehicle ‘World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)’ – nominated former Bayer director Alessandra Fajardo and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOadr879Rvo">Marcelo Behar</a> as their <a href="https://www.estadao.com.br/economia/governanca/setor-empresarial-brasil-agenda-internacional-cop30/?srsltid=AfmBOoqxFKsMFWACVZoJhS1-U1zjyLT6k73l0HvZgnteUTYjdMztotn1">COP30 representatives</a>. Fajardo was once responsible for strategy and sustainability at the agrochemical giant, as well as Food Value Chain partnerships. He has since become Executive Director at CEBDS. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Fajardo and Behar will “lead the mobilisation of companies for COP30, together with other executives”, according to the Brazilian press outlet Estadão. The so-called ‘COP30 CEO Action Advisory Board’, which the CEBDS appoints together with the WBCSD, will also be involved. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">This collaboration between CEBDS, WBCSD and the CEO Advisory Board has already borne fruit. Ahead of the conference, the trio presented COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago with a list of climate-saving proposals in line with corporate interests. «Public-private cooperation will be essential on the road to a successful COP30,»<a href="https://cebds.org/en/release/a-100-dias-da-cop30-cebds-intensifica-mobilizacao-empresarial-para-fortalecer-protagonismo-do-brasil-na-agenda-climatica-global/"> said CEBDS president Marina Freitas Grossi.</a></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Meanwhile, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which includes over 230 multinationals, claimed that along with the CEBDS, it "will play a central role at COP30". The organisation said: "We will present business solutions, highlight measurable progress and work with governments to remove systemic barriers.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Another very active, big player is the <a href="https://abag.com.br/institucional-abag-historia/">Brazilian agricultural association ABAG</a> (<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/abagbrasil/">Associação Brasileira do Agronegócio, see also B</a>ox<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/abagbrasil/"> 1)</a>. This organisation, which has dozens of multinational members, has also been busy on the PR front. In April, it hosted the forum ‘Towards COP30: Agribusiness and Climate Change.’ </p> <p lang="fr-FR">At the event, which was attended by Fajardo's successor Felipe Albuquerque on behalf of Bayer, ABAG <a href="https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/meio-ambiente/noticia/2025-08/climate-crisis-agribusiness-positions-itself-part-solution">developed a position paper</a> on the climate summit. Almost the entire agro-industry contributed to the paper. As well as Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, Corteva and their trade association Croplife, others actively involved included Bosch, the Brazilian research institute Embrapa, the agricultural machinery manufacturer John Deere, the fertiliser company Yara, the food raw materials mogul Cargill, the Brazilian environment and agriculture ministries, Rabobank and various other organisations and institutions.</p> <p lang="fr-FR"> </p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Agriculture is the sector with the highest <a href="https://seeg.eco.br/">responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil</a>.<br><br><br><br> </p> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-IE"><strong>Ready to lead, and to profit </strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">The fine-tuning of the framing of agribusiness as a “climate solution” concluded in São Paulo last August, during the <a href="https://congressoabag.com.br/">24th Congress of Brazilian Agribusiness</a>, organised by ABAG and B3 (the Brazilian Stock Exchange). Once again, Bayer was central – being the Master Sponsor. In unequivocal terms, a declaration was released pronoucing that “the sector is ready to lead the climate agenda”. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">What this really means is: the agribusiness sector is ready to get funding and profit from all kinds of carbon trading. The congress declaration was called “<a href="https://abag.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/agronegocio-frente-as-mudancas-climaticas.pdf">Agribusiness facing climate change</a>” and it outlined the industry's <a href="http://www.apple.com/uk">four key solutions for climate change</a>:</p> <ul> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Widespread adoption of low-carbon technologies;</p> </li> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Expansion of crop-livestock-forestry systems;</p> </li> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Regenerative practices to restore soils and protect water sources;</p> </li> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Strengthening productive resilience in the face of extreme weather events.</p> </li> </ul> <p lang="fr-FR"> </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Strikingly though, none of the key actions required from the agribusiness sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were mentioned: no reduction of land use change, no reduction of fertilisers or pesticide use and no reduction of ruminant animals. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">The financial implications are significant too. The same document stresses the huge financial opportunities for the agribusiness sector. These include the recently approved Brazilian Carbon Market; the Green CPR (a scheme which in theory remunerates producers for the preservation, recovery, and sustainable management of native forests, enabling the commercialisation of environmental assets linked to conservation); Green Bonds (fixed income instruments that finance “sustainable” projects where investor funds support actions that mitigate and adapt to to climate change); and Environmental Service Payments (direct remuneration for practices that promote environmental conservation, in turn benefiting rural producers, traditional communities, and indigenous peoples).</p> <p lang="fr-FR"><a href="https://timesbrasil.com.br/brasil/exclusivo-bayer-destaca-acoes-de-sustentabilidade-e-projetos-sociais-antes-da-cop30/">According to Felipe Alburquerque</a>, Bayer's Head of Sustainability in Latin America, the company will have three main pillars of action at COP30:</p> <ul> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Representing the sector, and showcasing Brazilian agribusiness solutions that contribute to climate change mitigation, in partnership with Embrapa, CropLife Brasil, ICC Brasil, and CEBDS;</p> </li> <li> <p>Presenting real-life implementation cases, such as the Procarbono project, which involves more than 2,000 Brazilian farmers applying ‘regenerative agriculture’ practices;</p> </li> <li> <p lang="fr-FR">Local presence, demonstrating agricultural technologies and supporting for social projects in Belém, including the Casarão Project, which serves 250 children with theatre, music, language, and psychological assistance courses.</p> </li> </ul> <p lang="fr-FR"><br>Again the lack of focus on, or acknowledgment of, Bayer's key role in generating carbon emissions in Brazil and worldwide is striking. It’s crystal clear that Bayer will do everything it can to distract attention away from its contribution to climate change and biodiversity destruction – instead portraying itself as a benevolent force for people and planet. </p> <p lang="fr-FR"> </p> <p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Bayer claims to be part of the solution</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer and other agribusiness players have cleverly positioned themselves to make use of COP30 as "an outstanding opportunity for agribusiness to be seen as part of the solution to the challenges posed by climate change", as <a href="https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/meio-ambiente/noticia/2025-08/climate-crisis-agribusiness-positions-itself-part-solution">the August Congress of agribusiness statement put it.</a> And all this without sacrificing productivity. To deliver this ‘sustainable intensification’ is the magic buzzword and ‘regenerative agriculture’ is the magic remedy. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Through 'sustainable intensification' agribusiness companies claim they can reduce pesticide use by deploying all kinds of new technology, while keeping production high. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Originally, ‘regenerative agriculture’ meant doing without pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Big Agro only adopted the term in the wake of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. That was when agriculture first started to be described as a positive factor in ‘climate’ discussions, and no longer just a major source of carbon dioxide emissions. It was said that fields could bind CO2 via humus, and thus offer storage options. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Global players like Bayer increasingly presented herbicide glyphosate as a major climate saviour. This claim was made because glyphosate eliminates the need for ploughing (which releases CO2) and enables direct sowing. It conveniently ignores the energy-intensive manufacturing process of glyphosate, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/home/hans/Downloads/www%3Bstopglyphosate.eu">and the product's soil destructive toxicity</a>. This ‘no tillage farming’ is also promoted in the ABAG COP30 position paper, as an alleged climate-friendly measure. All this while massive pesticide use is actually degrading<a href="https://stopglyphosate.eu/why-ban-glyphosate/soil-health/"> soil health</a>. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Deploying this greenwashing agenda, agribiz corporations like Bayer are trying to avoid more radical approaches such as agroecology, which envisages a whole scale rejection of the agro-industrial model. Bayer describes its version of 'regenerative' agriculture thus: "We define this concept as a results-oriented production system with the aim of increasing agricultural production, farmers' incomes and, at the same time, the climate resilience of agriculture and the regeneration of nature."</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR"><strong>Carbon-trading: the greatest business opportunity in human history</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">All of the above – of course - also includes the agricultural sector's participation in dirty CO2-trading schemes. ABAG in particular has its sights set on the rainforest. It wants to generate CO2 credits through measures to preserve the rainforest, which it can then use to engage in lucrative emissions trading – and, as a side effect, improve Brazil's climate balance. The state of Pará has already contributed its forest resources to a <a href="https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-leaf-coalitions-redd-deal-in">180 million dollar deal</a> <a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/bayer-transparency-report.pdf">with the LEAF coalition,</a> which includes Bayer, Amazon and Walmart, among others. Governor Helder Barbalho has described emissions trading as “the greatest business opportunity in human history”.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The decision to make a deal with LEAF was made without consulting local residents. The indigenous communities living and working in the rainforest regions in particular felt ignored <a href="https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-leaf-coalitions-redd-deal-in">and reacted with outrage</a>. They fear losing sovereignty over the areas where they live, and are afraid of restrictions on use, the creation of no-go areas or even displacement.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">During protests in January 2025, indigenous representative Dadá Borari said: “there is no respect for the issue of land, of territory. The state of Pará is a leader in deforestation. Carbon traders leave this place and sell emission certificates, while we have to stay here. That is disrespectful! And then they organise a COP where everything looks as if it were fine.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Emissions-trading schemes have a history of failure - they were originally pushed for by the oil industry in an effort to keep business as usual going. Like many multinationals, Bayer tries to compensate for some of its climate sins via offsets, which all too often fail to deliver. In 2023, <a href="https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2023-01/co2-certificates-fraud-emissions-trading-climate-protection-english">Die Zeit reported on accounting errors by Verra </a>- the company that certifies CO2 savings - amounting to 89 million tonnes of CO2. In some cases, the forests involved no longer existed, and in others, the company, which counts the Bayer Group among its customers, had rounded up the figures. The newspaper's verdict on the value of the certificates was therefore harsh: ‘A pile of rubbish.’ And according to Die Zeit, the balance sheets for other forest protection projects are no better.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer says it is making significant investments in these deals: "In 2024, we offset 0.71 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents as part of our involvement in voluntary carbon markets". It lists forest protection and reforestation projects in Brazil, Indonesia, Colombia, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Uruguay.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In December 2024, the Brazilian government established the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System, with a <a href="https://agfeed.com.br/esg/o-brasil-finalmente-tem-um-mercado-de-carbono-e-o-agro-pode-se-beneficiar-disso/">120 billion dollar potential</a>. The Brazilian system notably excludes agriculture, leaving the biggest greenhouse gas emitters without any mandatory emissions reductions, although they can choose to participate in the voluntary market. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer will certainly take advantage of this opportunity. It has already developed a framework for the commodification of its emissions via the ProCarbono project, in partnership with Embrapa (the public agricultural company), estimating the <a href="https://www.agro.bayer.com.br/nossa-bayer/bayer-embrapa-parceria-calculo-pegada-carbono-algodao-brasileiro">carbon footprint of cotton crops</a>. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">According to Bayer<a href="https://exame.com/negocios/o-agro-brasileiro-e-sim-sustentavel-diz-ceo-da-bayer-crop-science-america-latina/?utm_source=copiaecola&utm_medium=compartilhamento"> Crop Science’s CEO</a>, they have measured the effect of good practices such as no-till and crop rotation with 2,000 farmers and 300,000 soil samples, and “were able to demonstrate over 10% of productivity increase and 15% more of carbon storage in the soil”. The objective is clear: new markets and escape routes via <a href="https://brasilpelomeioambiente.com.br/en/project/pro-carbon-commodities/">carbon commodification</a>. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">But this is again a profit-seeking distraction. The only way that agriculture can significantly contribute to the fight against climate change is by massively reducing the use of chemicals, and focusing on the production of locally adapted crops instead of commodity crops that generate profits at regional or global markets. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="pt-PT"><strong>Criminal carbon fraud exposed by “Operation Greenwashing”</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Early in June 2024, <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2024/06/brazilian-investigators-raid-amazon-carbon-credit-projects-exposed-by-mongabay/">a judicial and police operation</a> called <a href="https://www.metropoles.com/brasil/amazonia-legal-pf-faz-acao-contra-venda-ilegal-de-creditos-de-carbono">Operation Greenwashing</a> launched a raid targeting the proponents of some of the largest carbon credit projects in the Brazilian Amazon. This led to the arrest of businessmen accused of involvement in the illegal appropriation of almost 400,000 hectares of public property and illegal extraction of over 1 million cubic metres of timber. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">The investigative site Mongabay provided the evidence that led to this operation: “The <a href="https://www.gov.br/pf/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2024/06/pf-deflagra-operacao-greenwashing-para-investigar-venda-irregular-de-creditos-de-carbono">Greenwashing Operation</a> focuses on the group of Ricardo Stoppe, cited in late May in a <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/top-brands-buy-amazon-carbon-credits-from-suspected-timber-laundering-scam/">Mongabay investigation</a> for its links with an alleged illegal timber scam. In the country’s largest ever investigation on this matter, authorities found that the group had installed projects in land-grabbed areas, making 180 million reais ($34 million) from the selling of “rotten” carbon credits.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">According to Mongabay, Stoppe “owns five REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon, covering 400,000 hectares”. REDD+ stands for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and carbon credits are generated by protecting an area that could otherwise be deforested. Mongabay’s investigation was published as part of the <a href="https://www.elclip.org/carbono-opaco/">Opaque Carbon</a> project, an alliance that investigates the functioning of the carbon market in Latin America and is led by the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism (CLIP).</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Businessman Ricardo Stoppe actually participated in COP28 in the UAE, and at the time positioned himself as “the largest seller of carbon credits globally”, according to the <a href="https://www.brasilagro.com.br/conteudo/-pf-aponta-organizacao-criminosa-em-maior-fraude-com-creditos-de-carbono.html">Federal Police</a>. In an interview, he called himself “<a href="https://www.metropoles.com/negocios/pf-faria-lima-esquema-credito-carbono">Carbon King</a>”, having sold credits to Nestlé, Toshiba and Boeing, as well as others.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Stoppe’s group acquired property in the state of Amazonas and sold 33 million dollars in carbon credits to large companies and the financial markets. Last month, the police accused 31 people of forming a criminal organisation involved in the illegal appropriation of public or community lands to generate carbon credits in the south of the Amazon. This is the biggest carbon fraud ever discovered in the country. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Yet, at COP-30 the “new Carbon King” is none other than Brazil’s agribusiness sector, preparing a huge greenwashing operation despite being responsible for generating three quarters of the country’s emissions. As we have shown, Bayer is a key player in many Brazilian agribusiness associations like ABAG. Bayer and their allies aim to get ‘green’ investment funds, carbon credits and access to more markets for their key products: pesticides, GMOs and farmers' data. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="pt-PT"><strong>Pesticide use in Brazil: growth, weakened regulation and tax breaks for agribusiness</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">In 2008 Brazil became the world’s <a href="https://www.agrolink.com.br/noticias/brasil-lidera-mercado-protecao-de-cultivos_499543.html?utm_source=agrolink-clipping&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=clipping_edicao_7866&utm_content=noticia&ib=y">biggest consumer of chemicals in agriculture</a>: consumption reached $14.3 billion in 2024, exceeding even the US sales volume. Soy, corn, sugar cane and coffee are the crops that use the most chemicals. Bayer is the second biggest company responsible for this trade, after Syngenta. The volume of pesticides consumed in 2024 increased 8.5% compared to 2023, reaching a total of 1.5 million tonnes. The expansion of soy crops to fragile and protected areas in the Amazon and Cerrado is <a href="https://blogdopedlowski.com/2025/03/06/o-brasil-e-o-maior-consumidor-mundial-de-agrotoxicos-e-ve-aumento-no-risco-de-doencas-graves/">based on the massive use of pesticides</a>.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">A paper by Pesticide Action Network International (PAN international) highlighted <a href="https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/Cultivating-Coherent-Climate-Action.pdf">the climate footprint of pesticides</a>, because almost "all synthetic chemicals - including pesticides - are derived from petrochemicals". Moreover "pesticides turn soils from carbon sinks to sources, because the post-application effects of pesticides generate potentially far larger emissions", through degradation of soil.</p> <p lang="fr-FR"><a name="__RefMoveTo__move212552196"></a> Bayer leaned into Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, as revealed by the De Olho nos Ruralistas' <a href="https://deolhonosruralistas.com.br/2022/11/16/dossie-os-financiadores-da-boiada-ganha-mencao-honrosa-no-4o-premio-de-jornalismo-mosca/">report on Brazil's turn towards agrotoxic deregulation</a>. The company deployed lobby groups such as CropLife Brasil to push for environmental deregulation, to great effect. During the four years of the Bolsonaro presidency, a record 2,182 agrotoxic chemicals and pesticides were approved.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Bayer is also a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/BAYER%20PROFILE-compressed.pdf">member of numerous lobby groups and think tanks</a>, including Instituto Pensar o Agro, SINGIVEG (Sindicato Nacional da Indústria de Produtos para Defesa Vegetal), ABAG (Brazilian Agrobusiness Association), Agrosaber and Pamagro. The results for Bayer of intense lobbying during Bolsonaro's rule were the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjsufaF9beBAxWlxAIHHaDSACwQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Toxic-Trading-POR.pdf&usg=AOvVaw11vCfFuSt26IJL-j8gMdWi&opi=89978449">approval of 45 new agrotoxic products</a>, 19 of which are banned in the European Union.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The production of highly toxic pesticides in the EU, and export to countries like Brazil has become a huge public scandal of double standards. In <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/05/deadly-exports">its report ‘Deadly Exports’</a>, Corporate Europe Observatory exposed how corporations including Bayer are lobbying EU institutions that are preparing, at long last, to end this practice. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">In 2024, the European Union approved the export of nearly 122,000 tonnes of pesticides that are banned for use on EU fields. This was a 50% increase on the 81,000 tonnes reported in 2018. Altogether, EU-banned pesticide exports were sent to 93 different countries last year; 75% to low- and middle-income nations, where environmental and health regulations are typically weaker. The United States was the largest importer, <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/10/14/export-grade-poison-sale-of-eu-banned-pesticides-soars-as-brazil-becomes-the-worlds-top-consumer/">followed by Brazil.</a></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Brazilian academic researcher Larissa Bombardi, author of <em>Pesticides and Chemical Colonialism, </em>attributes the sharp rise in exports to the <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/05/23/the-devastation-bill-proposal/">powerful lobbying of the chemical industry</a> across Europe.</p> <p>For Bombardi, on the eve of hosting COP30, the debate on pesticides must be brought to the forefront. <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/10/14/export-grade-poison-sale-of-eu-banned-pesticides-soars-as-brazil-becomes-the-worlds-top-consumer/">She said in Brasil de Fato</a>: “COP should be a space for us to understand that pesticides are directly related to climate change, that the very industrial production of pesticides involves significant use of fossil fuels, and that the substances that make up these pesticides also originate from them. I think COP is an incredible opportunity for us to discuss this.”</p> <p>Bombardi also stressed the <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/05/10/brazils-secretariat-for-institutional-relations-we-wont-develop-without-agrarian-reform/">need for land reform and democratised access to land</a>, noting that “1% of landowners still control 50% of Brazil’s territory. Brazil must wake up and say: ‘We want <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/10/10/food-insecurity-falls-in-brazil-but-54-7-million-people-still-face-hunger/">food sovereignty</a> and a new social pact, not subordination.’”</p> <p>In September 2024, President Lula called for “the ban of the banned”, and declared “it’s unacceptable that <a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/12/19/celebrated-by-the-government-and-convervative-politicians-tax-reform-expands-fiscal-incentives-for-pesticides/">80% of the pesticides banned in Germany are freely sold in Brazil</a>, as if we were a banana republic.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">But, since Lula regained the presidency (his party does not have a majority in either chamber of the National Congress), unfortunately nothing has changed significantly. Although a National Programme to Reduce Agrotoxics called Pronara was launched in 2014, more than a decade later it has still not been implemented </p> <p lang="fr-FR"><a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/10/14/export-grade-poison-sale-of-eu-banned-pesticides-soars-as-brazil-becomes-the-worlds-top-consumer/">According to Alan Tygel</a>, from the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life, Brazil’s pesticide approval system used to rely on a tripartite review involving the environmental agency (Ibama), the health agency (Anvisa), and the Ministry of Agriculture (Mapa). But legislative changes have weakened regulators and concentrated power in Mapa, which is dominated by agribusiness lobbies. </p> <p lang="fr-FR"><a href="https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2025/10/14/export-grade-poison-sale-of-eu-banned-pesticides-soars-as-brazil-becomes-the-worlds-top-consumer/">Tygel said</a>: “Over the past 20 years, pesticide use, planted area, and corporate profits have grown nonstop, about 8% annually. Nothing else in Brazil’s economy grows like that: not inflation, GDP, or banking profits. Only the pesticide market.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The August 2024 report “<a href="https://space-fs-strapi.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/32dac93bc9ca7760bc5a52d7abc73a6e.pdf?updated_at=2024-08-12T12:43:10.938Z">Regulation of pesticides: lobbyists visit the federal executive branch amid the definition of new rules”</a> addresses key political developments impacting on pesticides and chemicals under the Lula government. These decisions include the Ministry of Agriculture boycotting the pesticide reduction programme, and the lack of implementation of the new pesticide law - leaving the two public regulators, Ibama and Anvisa, in limbo.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">But that's not all. In 2024 alone, the ten biggest agribusiness companies in Brazil received a <a href="https://sumauma.com/boi-soja-agrotoxicos-isencoes-tributarias-agroindustria-alimentam-desmatamento-poluicao/">tax cut to the value of</a> <a href="https://sumauma.com/boi-soja-agrotoxicos-isencoes-tributarias-agroindustria-alimentam-desmatamento-poluicao/">25 billion euros </a>(R$158.17 billion). Bayer itself was exempted from paying 330 million euros in taxes (R$2.11 billion). These exemptions come from federal tax relief on fertilisers, pesticides, seeds, seedlings and staple foods, benefiting in particular the meat, soy and orange export chains.</p> <p lang="fr-FR"> </p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">“COP should be a space for us to understand that pesticides are directly related to climate change, that the very industrial production of pesticides involves significant use of fossil fuels, and that the substances that make up these pesticides also originate from them. I think COP is an incredible opportunity for us to discuss this.”</p> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="pt-PT"><strong>A compliant government supports poisoned policies</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Despite the support for progressive rule after Bolsonaro’s presidency, Brazil’s current government shows no sign of distancing itself from agribusiness’s poisoned policies. Brazil appointed Ricardo Rodrigues, Minister for Agriculture in the first Lula government, as COP30 Special Envoy for Agriculture. In the interim, he has served as president of FIESP (the all-powerful Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo), COSAG (Agribusiness Superior Council) and ABAG. Rodrigues <a href="https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-will-be-an-opportunity-to-showcase-brazils-sustainable-tropical-agriculture-to-the-world-says-special-envoy">said in no uncertain terms</a> that COP-30 will showcase Brazil’s agriculture as both sustainable and replicable in other countries. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">According to Rodrigues, Brazil must “show the world the efficiency and replicability of Brazilian tropical agribusiness” - but for that to happen, “trade rules must become more flexible”. Rodrigues also pushed the narrative towards bioenergy, claiming that alcohol from “sugarcane plays a crucial role in decarbonising the energy and transportation sectors.” </p> <p lang="fr-FR">To sum up his argument, the government’s Special Envoy for Agriculture to COP30 claimed that Brazil “has 10 million hectares of planted forests, which also capture carbon.” This blatantly ignores the fact that the country has been <a href="https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/norte/am/desmatamento-na-amazonia-sobe-91-em-maio-de-2025/#google_vignette">losing forested area year after year</a>, in particular to expand agriculture and animal production.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Even the <a href="https://sumauma.com/governos-tendem-a-ser-conservadores-e-devem-ser-pressionados-diz-presidente-da-cop-30/">president of COP30</a>, Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, is claiming in public that “sustainability is one of the key strengths of our agribusiness” and that “we already have an agriculture that is significantly sustainable and is expected to become increasingly so.” In the meantime, the Brazilian government has announced investments of <a href="https://timesbrasil.com.br/brasil/exclusivo-bayer-destaca-acoes-de-sustentabilidade-e-projetos-sociais-antes-da-cop30/">up to 1.5 trillion dollars in green technologies</a> over the next ten years. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">Meanwhile, everything is continuing as usual in Brazil. The soy moratorium, under which leading agricultural commodity traders Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and COFCO agreed – due to considerable public pressure – not to sell soy from rainforest areas cleared after 2008, was suspended in August 2025. The Brazilian c<a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/brazil-regulator-suspends-soy-moratorium-orders-probe-exporters-2025-08-18/">ompetition authority considered the agreement a violation of antitrust law</a>, and launched an investigation. </p> <p lang="fr-FR">A court in Brasília has reinstated the moratorium for the time being, but its future is uncertain. Greenpeace said the ruling was the result of pressure from the farm lobby, compromising nearly two decades of progress: "By suspending the moratorium, CADE not only encourages deforestation but also silences consumers' right to choose products that do not contribute to the devastation of the Amazon."</p> <p lang="fr-FR">As if that were not enough, the trade agreement that Brazil and the other Mercosur countries Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay want to conclude with the EU also threatens to increase greenhouse gas emissions. This deal, which is being pushed by a large intercontinental industrial coalition – in the EU mainly the automotive and chemical industries, on the other side of the Atlantic primarily Big Agro – is likely to lead to accelerated deforestation.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">All this is not exactly a good condition for a successful COP30. Which is perhaps why the COP leadership has hired the PR agency Edelman for $835,000. This PR company provides its services and to ‘develop a strategic narrative’ that will then be disseminated via the media. Surely Edelman will prepare itself for some crisis communication. In <a href="https://mst.org.br/2025/11/11/mst-denuncia-agronegocio-em-espaco-da-cop-30/">view of the protests</a> expected from many groups inside and outside Brazil during the COP, the Edelmen and women have surely a lot of work ahead of them.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Beyond time to kick toxic polluters like Bayer out</strong> </p> <p>The AgriZone sponsored by Bayer may not be an integral part of the COP30 Blue Zone, where the real negotiations happen. But Anna Cárcamo, Greenpeace’s climate policy expert, <a href="https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/10/cop30-agribusiness-to-contest-climate-crisis-narrative-at-the-privately-funded-agrizone/">told Reporters Brasil</a> that spaces like AgriZone tend to indirectly influence negotiations: “These spaces do not define, in themselves, the results of the COP, but the weight of lobbying of large economic sectors is undeniable.” Cárcamo says that the UN and the organiser of the COP (UNFCCC) should create stronger rules, to avoid conflict of interest and limit interference by those with a commercial interest in the outcome of negotiations.</p> <p>Kick Big Polluters Out, KBPO, a global coalition of over 450 organisations, has called on the UN to kick big polluters out of climate negotiations. They should no longer be allowed to "unduly influence, weaken and undermine the global response to climate change". As a result of ongoing campaigning, the UNFCCC has introduced the <a href="https://kickbigpollutersout.org/COP30-next-steps-KBPO">latest rule changes</a> in time for COP30, inviting all non-governmental participants to publicly disclose who is funding their participation and declare their individual objectives at the COP are in full alignment with the UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, and Kyoto Protocol.</p> <p>The KBPO coalition's second demand is to end sponsorship of UN climate talks or climate action by big polluting companies, as this enables greenwashing. Indeed, the example of a pesticide giant like Bayer sponsoring the Embrapa Zone during COP30 in Brazil is a prime example of this.</p> <p>KBPO also demands that climate justice movements, led by frontline communities who are hit hardest by the climate crisis, should be heard. Finally, they insist that international climate talks should put us on a path to a "total and equitable <a href="https://www.systems-change.net/keep-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground">transition off of fossil fuels</a>". In Europe, the Fossil Free Politics campaign makes the same demands – and for a second year running has <a href="https://fossilfreepolitics.org/news/cop30-letter-to-hoekstra/">asked</a> the European Commission and EU member states to not bring big polluters to COP30 on their delegations.</p> <p>We need a firewall between decision-makers on the one side, and Bayer and its profit-seeking polluting lobby representatives on the other. Much as we need toxic-free food and a toxic-free environment, we also desperately need toxic-free politics. </p> <p>The tobacco industry lobby has in recent decades been somewhat sidelined, after decades sitting at the negotiating table for public health policy decisions. This came about thanks <a href="https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/spotlight/5-3">to years of media revelations, litigation and civil society campaigns - leading to the WHO’</a>s <a href="https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/spotlight/5-3">FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) protocol</a> and specifically <a href="https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/spotlight/5-3">article 5.3</a> which forbids policymakers to meet directly with tobacco lobbyists. Following this positive example, we need to urgently kick big toxic polluters out of the places where they exercise their poisonous political influence.</p> <p>Bayer has undeniably grown into one of the most important toxic global players. To have a politics that puts people and planet before profits, they must be excluded from the corridors of power, and from any future climate COPs.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.09.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/bayers-toxic-trails" hreflang="en">Bayer’s toxic trails </a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="BAYER-COP30-Final.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/BAYER-COP30-Final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BAYER-COP30-Final.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Return to sender: Videos from the campaign</h1> <p>Joana — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 14:42:00 +0000</p> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.11.2025</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Europe bans toxic pesticides… but exports them abroad! The End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition decided to send them back to the European Commission! Watch all the videos here.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU banned dozens of pesticides because they are too dangerous for our health and too toxic for nature. But European companies still produce and export those banned chemicals. And worse, every year the EU exports 75 of those substances in huge quantities to all corners of the world: more than 120.000 tonnes in 2024! <br><br>In 2020 Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, promised to stop this scandalous double standard, which is making children sick, threatening a healthy pregnancy, violating human rights. In the recently leaked European Commission's Work Program 2026 there is nothing mentioned on the topic, so we need to keep on holding EU institutions to account! <br><br>A <a href="https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics/pesticides/sharp-rise-in-eu-export-trade-in-banned-pesticides-despite-european-commission-promises">new report by Public Eye and Unearthed shows</a> that 5 years later the EU exports even more banned pesticides than in 2020: more than 120.000 tonnes in 2024. So instead of keeping its promise, the EU doubled these toxic exports! Time to send these toxic substances back to Ursula von der Leyen, watch the videos to find out more! </p> <p>You can also sign and share the <a href="https://www.foodwatch.org/en/stop-the-toxic-trade">European</a> and <a href="https://www.openpetition.eu/petition/online/stop-the-export-of-toxic-pesticides-to-african-countries">African petitions</a> to stop the toxic trade!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-b17fdb29-7fff-7399-8998-6527de81d175">1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) : Soil fumigant banned since 2007, high risk for water contamination, damage to nature and its species, a probable human carcinogen.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">Glufosinate: In 2024, the EU exported more than 19 000 tonnes of this BASF herbicide, which has been banned since 2018 and can cause fertility problems and poses risks to healthy pregnancy and babies. </p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Mancozeb: Banned for the use in the EU since 2020, Mancozeb is an endocrine disruptor and toxic to reproduction, it also negatively impacts the thyroid, fertility, pregnant women and babies.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Picoxystrobin: Banned in 2017, it is very toxic fungicide with severe ecotoxical effects on ecosystems, it produces risks for consumers as its residues can be genotoxic.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Epoxiconazole: Fungicide banned in 2020, toxic to reproduction as it negatively impacts fertility, a healthy pregnancy, concerns to cause cancer, and very toxic to aquatic life, birds and wild animals.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> </article> </main></body></html>