What Alexander spoke about.

Mr. Colleague, a former teacher of mine said: Where Mistus, there Christ; where fertilisers, his disciples. And there is a law that our students learn in school. This is the law of increasing yield growth. They act like if you can produce plants without fertilization, you can produce food. But they must also be aware that 4 billion people depend on food production, which is also dependent on mineral fertilizers. These are facts that are on the table. And I think it's also important that you don't just talk bad about mineral fertilizers. We need it to produce food. I believe these are also facts that you perceive. Or do you think we can do it all with organic fertilizer?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, With our report on sustainable animal husbandry, we are sending a clear signal. European livestock farming is not a discontinued model. It is the foundation of our food security, our rural areas and a functioning circular economy. Animal husbandry accounts for 40% of agricultural value added in the EU. 4 million people work in this sector. In mountain areas and in less-favoured areas – on our alpine pastures – animal husbandry is often the only economically viable land use. Those who give up these farms not only lose food production, they also lose landscape conservation, biodiversity and entire village communities. And yet, over the last decade, we have lost almost 9% of our cattle and 8% of our pig population. And it must also be borne in mind that only 12% of our farmers are under the age of 40. What exactly do we need to change that? And that is exactly what we have been thinking about in our report. And an essential and the first point is that we really need to put an end to more regulatory overburdens on our operations. Our farmers need planning security and no permanent changes to the law. Stable construction costs several hundred thousand to millions of euros, and it cannot be possible for legislative proposals to change here every year or for new legislative measures to come, such as an industrial emissions directive, which only creates additional costs without benefits. Secondly: An honest and fair trade policy. We cannot demand the highest animal welfare and husbandry standards in the world on our farms, and at the same time we cannot keep these standards for imported products. Such a thing must be fair in the interests of our consumers, but also of our companies. And thirdly: Our consumers also have a right to know where their products come from. Not only on primary ingredients, but also when products are processed, this should be more clearly stated. A marinated chop in the summer without knowing where it comes from is not fair. Here, too, we should work to ensure that there is a fair and clear indication of origin, including of processed products. All of this must be within the framework of a sustainable common agricultural policy, where we create sound, more balanced financing – clear planning certainty for our farms. Let us use this report as a guide for our future legal work. I think we have set the right framework here. Let's work on it. Thank you very much. And I am pleased that we are creating a broad consensus here today.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Colleague! They say we should abolish fossil fuels – I fully support them. Then why is your group against us using more wood, for example, to get away from heating natural gas? Why is your group against it when it comes to producing sustainable fuels from grain so that we can get away from fossil fuels? We would have the technologies, the opportunities with us in Europe. It is your faction, your party, that wants to prevent these possibilities. Why don't you stand up for it anymore? We have the opportunity to use biofuel, wood from our own forest, and you prevent it together with your faction.

Dear Mr. Colleague! We have an agricultural commissioner here who has really put forward a lot of facilitations for agriculture in recent months. Her former party colleague Janusz Wojciechowski has been agricultural commissioner for the past five years. You now have 30 seconds. Tell me what five initiatives he has taken for agriculture in recent years. I haven't seen much. We now have to repair a lot from the last period, which unfortunately has not been tackled by your former colleague.

Madam President, Commissioner! I am glad that tomorrow we will finally be voting on facilitation in the common agricultural policy. What threatens us in the coming years, however, is more than worrying, and the proposal for the common agricultural policy is for many colleagues rather a beginning of the end of the common agricultural policy. There is a risk of fewer payments for our farmers, who absolutely do not cover high inflation, rising production costs and simply compensate for the loss of income here. Both the budget and the proposal for the next common agricultural policy really need to be urgently reconsidered and revised. We need a further development of the current model, which also has a reasonable budget, where really inflation and just these rising production costs are finally taken into account. Because our farmers do not want alms, they want fair conditions to produce, they want framework conditions in agricultural policy that enable them to do so. Just let our farmers work – they are the specialists in producing the best food. Let's let them do that.

Dear Mr President, dear Commissioner! The past five years have been rather five lean years for agriculture: a Commissioner with little interest in agriculture, legislation that has focused more on set-aside and depletion than on food security, and political majorities in the European Parliament that have absolutely not represented the interests of our farmers. I am all the more looking forward to the next five years with you, Commissioner. Your vision is a first important step: Less bureaucracy at our farms, a level playing field when it comes to food imports and a clear commitment to security of supply are right, important steps. But now it is important to really achieve something from this vision in the practical implementation. We still have a lot on the table that means more bureaucracy: I am convinced that the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Deforestation Regulation and, and, where we need to find solutions here and, at the same time, take concrete new steps, we can count on you to do so; You can count on our support. Let's work on it together!

Dear Mr. Colleague! Just a quick reminder: There is a National Council resolution in Austria stating that Austria wants to campaign against Mercosur. They speak for fair conditions for our farmers. Your State Councillor in Styria says: We no longer want animal exports to third countries. Your FPÖ State Councillor in Lower Austria says: We need more veterinarians to control our farmers. Your colleagues here in the European Parliament have voted against stricter or not in favour of stricter origin labelling for honey. Then where is your commitment to farmers, besides throwing big words? Convince your colleagues at home!

Perhaps I would like to give some tutoring in agriculture and livestock farming, because you say yes, agriculture benefits. But agriculture is very versatile, and a farmer who may have just built a stable can't plant wine and now sell wine in Mercosur countries. So, one has to look closely at which agricultural sectors are disadvantaged by this trade agreement. I do not understand why agriculture has not simply been excluded from this agreement – where it is well known that this is the critical sector, there are the biggest concerns.

Madam President, I think a lot has been debated and we really need to focus on the headline: How is money used, which is actually for nature conservation, environmental protection and should not be used for lobbying against MEPs? It is important that – and it has never been criticised that funds should be cancelled here, but only the way they are used – there should be transparency, that what is in the Treaties should be disclosed. I am a farmer myself. Yes, I receive public money from the European Union. Every dollar I get can be seen. And then NGOs get hundreds of thousands of euros, have a total budget of 40 million euros, and you can't see at all where the other 40 million euros are from, let alone what exactly happens to those 700,000 euros, how they are used for lobbying against MPs. That has to change, and that is exactly what this debate is for, and it is also important that there are essential steps now.

So you think it is safe that millions of taxpayers' money, which is actually earmarked for nature conservation on the ground, is used to pay salaries of any people here in Brussels, who then lobby against us MPs, who send mass mails, who do any demonstrations, instead of really using LIFE funds to renaturalize rivers and plant trees? We criticize the influence of parliamentarians.

You also talk a lot about fair incomes for farmers and that it should benefit farmers. But if you look at many proposals from your group in particular, then much of the agricultural money should not go directly into the hands of farmers, but rather be used for NGOs, which then settle any restoration projects and co. So I think farmers are more likely not to feel represented by the Greens. What's your accusation? They are more likely to have mental problems when they hear agrarian ideas from Green MPs.

Mr President! Dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Agriculture is the backbone of our society. As a former teacher once said: It is not gold and money that feeds the world, but a billowing field of wheat. But our agriculture and our farmers are under increasing pressure, economically and therefore physically. It is high time that we recognised physical health in agriculture as an important issue, as well as all other challenges in this sector. If our farmers do not feel heard, this leads to frustration, and this frustration is then discharged. The most recent example, we have experienced it ourselves in front of the European Parliament: demonstrations, such as against the Mercosur trade agreement. Thousands of farmers see their existence threatened here, and they feel powerless when it comes to their concerns and concerns. Nevertheless, our President of the Commission has travelled to Uruguay and speaks on the ground that there are no problems with this agreement. But it is precisely this non-recognition of legitimate concerns towards our farmers that not only harms our trust, but also jeopardises the future of our entire agriculture in Europe. We must rethink towards a genuine appreciation for the work of our farmers. We have to listen, take their voice seriously, create working conditions that are economically better and thus also mentally more sustainable. A strong agriculture needs a strong voice. You, Commissioner, are responsible for this in the Commission and we Members are also responsible in Parliament. That's what we stand for.

Thank you very much for the question! I think a lot of things work great here. I know it from our volunteer fire brigade in Austria, in Lower Austria: It helped in the Netherlands last year. We in Austria have now had offers of help from Bavaria, from the Netherlands, from other countries. I believe that always establishing a new structure may not be right. I believe in creating networking – and there are already so many great projects; This can be further expanded. Exchange of experience is very important. That's the way to go. We see that disasters are becoming more and more. We need quick help here, and I'm really grateful to everyone. I believe that we are really going the right way here, especially to rely on volunteer fire brigades, etc.; They are really very supportive here.

Mr President, Commissioner! In the last few days I have witnessed for myself how it is when entire houses are destroyed, streets are washed away and crops are destroyed. And here you really have to say thank you again to everyone who is currently busy with tidying up: Thank you to everyone who helps! And of course, such extreme weather events also affect our agriculture. We've had the hottest summer since records were made. We have now seen rainfall in a few days, which is otherwise only in half a year, and we must respond to this situation, not only in Europe, but globally. The FAO warns that global food production can fall by up to 30% by 2050. It cannot be the way some would like to see agricultural production areas in Europe taken out of use and production possibilities further restricted. We have a global responsibility to grow climate-friendly varieties, to look, to develop irrigation where it is possible to establish insurance models – these are the paths we need. And let's stop blaming our farmers for climate change! They are the ones who provide us with food on a daily basis; Unfortunately, some people here have often forgotten that.

(Start of speech with microphone switched off) Consciousness. You talk a lot about Europe. But Europe is, I believe, only responsible for 10% or 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, and you blame European agriculture for climate change. Are you aware that European agriculture really contributes only a fraction to climate change? There is also the question to you: What have you already actively contributed to the fact that there is a change in climate change? Blaming someone else is always very good, but what did you do yourself?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, After more than 20 years, revising and updating the legislative proposal on the use of genetic engineering is more than reasonable and correct. However, with the pace that has just happened here in Parliament, we have not been able to clarify all the issues in detail. And just for such a scientific debate that we actually have to have here, not driven by populist announcements, it would actually be important that we have given ourselves a little more time here. Especially we in Austria live the freedom of genetic engineering and have committed ourselves to it, and this must also be possible in the future with this legislative proposal. In addition: One point that we are somewhat critical of is the patentability of seeds. In our opinion, not all details have yet been fully clarified here, and we must continue to enable our small seed producers to produce regionally in the future. In view of these but some unclear points, it is important to me that we continue to accept the Austrian way of freedom from genetic engineering and continue to make it possible.

Madam President, Commissioner! Yes, tomorrow we will vote on the so-called Breakfast Directive, but in the end we are talking about four different directives on honey, fruit juices, jams and dehydrated milk. At the outset, I would also like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and staff for having reached an agreement so quickly on the parliamentary side here, and I am also pleased that we will also conclude the trilogue in this mandate. I think we did something great. Especially when it comes to transparency of food, we have really achieved a lot here, and at the forefront is honey. I am really proud that we have implemented three important points: firstly, a very thorough identification of origin, secondly, a clear traceability of origin for honey and the prohibition of genuinely easily falsifiable honey. The EU currently produces around 220 000 tonnes of honey, but the demand for honey is much, much greater, and around 175 000 tonnes of honey are imported annually. 40 percent of these imports come from China, and much of it is actually not honey at all, but syrup from rice, wheat or sugar beet and mixed with color and other flavors. And an investigation by the European Commission this spring revealed that out of 320 samples examined in 147, it could not be determined whether it is really pure honey or just a falsification. And this is precisely what the consumer is currently not aware of on the label. For now, all that needs to be stated is: Honey from EU or non-EU countries, and thus the first part of the scam is already created. And we have really agreed here on a very good and ambitious proposal that we should give exact percentages, percentages and percentages.ranges I want to know where the honey comes from. The fact that there is really good and fair transparency here is important, on the one hand, for our consumers to make a clear direction in making a purchase decision and, on the other hand, for our European beekeepers. We so often decide where we want to protect bees, where we want to have more pollinators on our continent – it is precisely with such decisions that we can support this. And we have also decided, when it comes to traceability, to check that we need a European reference laboratory here, so that it can be determined exactly from which region this honey comes and that there are no more distortions. But in addition to honey, it is also about other products such as fruit juices and jams. And in the field of fruit juices, there will be a new category of sugar-reduced fruit juices in the future – here we will become wider in the product range. The demand for less sugary products is increasing, and so we have now created the possibility that there are just these sugar-reduced fruit juices. And I am also very happy that we have also discussed the area of origin labelling for fruit juices and jams and – if we are talking about origin here – that we want to establish this in the same way as honey, that there are also clear and reasonable points here – and we also know here that there are a lot of imports from third countries to far different standards than we have here in the European Union. And finally, good news, especially for the German-speaking world: We can get rid of a 22-year-old madness. We can finally say jam again to the jam in Austria and Germany. This was an area left over from the Irish and the British that jam could only be called if it contained sugar and citrus fruits. Now finally again: Jam may be called jam. A point that many in the German-speaking world can welcome. In this sense, I would like to thank everyone for this constructive cooperation and I look forward to the report being adopted by a large majority in plenary tomorrow, hopefully.

Madam President, Commissioner! We already have an exciting day behind us today when it comes to plant protection, and again and again the word pollinators, bees and Co. When it comes to the true protectors of our pollinators, then these are the farmers; And if we keep seeing frontal attacks on agriculture here, that's just a lie. Very simple, practical example: I have an apartment in Brussels, and when I open the window in the evening in the summer, the light burns inside and it is dark outside, then not a single insect comes in. At my home in the countryside, when I sit in the office in the evening and open the window, even now in winter – I open the window, five minutes, and I am quickly out again, because everything is full of gels and co. And then to get the accusation – especially on land – that agriculture is to blame for all insects dying, then that is a bit far-fetched. There you can see that biodiversity is still present there, especially there is the possibility that pollinators are accommodated, that bumblebees, bees are present and that we should also do something in the cities. If there is only light, light pollution and the cities shine all night, then the insects really do not know each other anymore. And I appeal to my colleagues to discuss sensible approaches here. I believe that we all have in common the goal that there should be more pollinators, but this can only be achieved in cooperation – this is very important here – and not in a conflict where one blames the other.

Thank you, Mr. Colleague! Tomorrow it will also be a question of how plant protection products can be used in our home region of Wachau in the future. Will you follow Sarah Wiener's proposal here, which will really impose a near ban and extreme conditions, or will you and your SPÖ delegation here propose to agree to one of our alternatives?

Thank you very much, Mrs. Paul! They have also referred to nature conservation in Europe, which is important, but even the European Commission says we will be more reliant on imports of food in the future. Was wir hier aber vorschlagen und was gerade der Bericht von Sarah Wiener ist, ist ja, dass wir mehr Importe haben. How do you want to transfer this to other countries? Because this is more than a contradiction that you present here when you say: Green in Europe, then we import it from third countries, as the Commission says.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner! Even in kindergarten, we teach our children not to play with food. But what we are discussing here threatens our food security more than we can imagine. Plant protection products are the basis for providing stable yields and we must be aware that our farmers need a full toolbox in order to really guarantee security of supply and to be able to provide us with food on a daily basis. I find it really very sad that we are discussing calculation factors, reference years and reduction targets without really looking at the whole thing. What our agriculture needs is faster, faster access to alternative plant protection products when it comes to presenting alternatives. And just one point is more than unacceptable in your proposal, Ms Wiener: that you want to ban almost all plant protection products in agricultural, sensitive areas. That would be the end of Austria for our viticulture around Lake Neusiedl or the Wachau apricot, which we appreciate so much. Because it is precisely with your proposed draft that it would be really impossible and very unpractical to produce sustainably here, and we are punishing those who are already doing it the most exemplary. I am also very disappointed with the European Commission, because we are still struggling here with the last remnant of Vice-President Timmermans. Because if a proposal has to be improved several times, then that is not the basis for a discussion that we actually want. Nevertheless, I see the chance that we will vote on a sensible law here tomorrow, where we can create the framework conditions for the next 15 to 20 years, in order to also create planning security. But I am convinced that we can only achieve this if we really do it hand in hand, where we involve farmers, where we also see that here in our house, in the European Parliament, we create a broad majority for a sensible proposal so that we can solve this together and not in opposition to each other.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, More than 50% - yes, you heard correctly: more than half of the medicines we urgently need are simply not available. Drugs for cancer therapy, vaccines and medicines for the treatment of serious nerve diseases such as epilepsy, Parkinson's disease are in short supply. That's just unacceptable, and it doesn't go on like that. We really need to intervene and act strongly when it comes to reducing the dependency on third countries in particular – China, India are to be highlighted here. Finally, we need a clear commitment to the production of medicines in Europe. Just a small example: In my home country Austria, 577 medicines are currently not available or are difficult to obtain and available to a limited extent, especially medicines for children. We absolutely need a common approach here. Commissioner, here we are really on the move together: Let us finally create conditions under which we can bring the production of medicines back to Europe so that these supply bottlenecks, which we currently have across Europe, can finally be countered.