Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It has now been just over a year since I focused on the situation of street dogs in Turkey. Nothing has improved since then – quite the contrary: More and more animals are being killed, killed, poisoned, burned in the most brutal way. Only last year, the government of the city of Istanbul passed a law that street dogs are no longer allowed to be fed. And the government is putting more and more pressure on communities to clean up the streets of animals. Of course, I also see the blatant human rights violations in the country and do not want to relativize them with my statements. I would just like to appeal at this point: Europe, please do not forget the suffering of the animals in this country!
Need for an adaptation of the EU legal framework on sustainable biofuels (debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. For most of us in the room, one thing should be clear: Petroleum fuel is not the future. But honestly: In many cases, it cannot be biofuels. For production, we are talking about disappearing forests, about habitats that are being destroyed, about animals and entire animal species that are being displaced, injured or killed because their homeland is being sacrificed for monocultures and fuel cultivation; A large load of pesticides is usually still on top of it. For Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute comes to a very clear judgment, colleague Paulus has just mentioned it to some extent: If the annual yield of a one-hectare rapeseed field is taken as a basis, a diesel combustion vehicle can travel around 32,000 kilometres. If you use the same area for a PV system, a battery-electric vehicle travels around 6 million kilometers. This is 190 times higher. On the sidelines, let me say: This is exactly the same nonsense, if you feed plants to animals first, then eat the animals, and not eat the plants immediately. Therefore: A fuel is not automatically sustainable just because it does not come from oil.
The multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward (debate)
The Baltic Sea needs us all, but the approach is not enough for me personally as an animal rights activist, as an environmentalist. Unfortunately, I will vote against it. I'm sorry. We need to deliver more than what has been done. Although I support many of the proposed objectives.
The multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward (debate)
Thank you very much, Madam. This is an easy and difficult question at the same time. Basically, I agree that absolutely something needs to change. The way it's been done so far, it can't go on. Something urgently needs to change. And this sham discussion, as well as colleagues on predators such as seals and cormorants, is not a solution. The entire fishery needs to be reformed. The way we deal with the Baltic Sea has to change. And that's why I simply cannot understand the colleagues who stand out as the voice of the fishermen here, because that's how you drive an industry completely against the wall if you continue like this.
The multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward (debate)
Mr President! Many of my previous speakers were here today to represent the interests of fishermen. They were the mouthpiece of an industry. I stand before you today for the living creatures of the Baltic Sea. I speak for them because their survival is endangered every day. What we experience in the Baltic Sea and other seas is not a natural problem. It is a man-made failure and it is also a political vision! For example, every year thousands of nets are lost, and as ghost nets they continue to kill: Fish, seabirds, porpoises, grey seals – all die painfully in these nets. While this problem has really been known for a long time, the salvage of these networks is still taken over by environmental organizations and volunteers, and the whole thing only with donations instead of with state responsibility. There is also a clear problem on our beaches: Dolly Ropes They decompose into microplastics and pollute an already very polluted ecosystem. Seas are being exploited just so that we can continue to get cheap fish on our plates. The true price is borne by the sea and its inhabitants. We need binding rules, clear reporting requirements for equipment loss, take-back systems and an end to environmentally harmful materials. The Baltic Sea is not a repository of raw materials, ladies and gentlemen.
Cali fund – follow up from the COP16 UN Convention on Biodiversity (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Actually, I can only continue where the colleague has just left off. For decades, the economy has exploited nature, exploited animals. And that we will then not be able to straighten it out again, that it will not be free – I think that is clear. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Biodiversity loss is one of the neglected threats of our time. And this happens because it does not come with floods and forest fires, but tacitly and creepingly. Animal and plant species are dying out at a pace we as humans have never experienced before. I would like to illustrate this with just two examples of insects in Germany: the butterfly Little Fox and the Rostrote Mauerbiene. Their decline is due to pesticides, food shortages, the lack of nesting sites and destroyed habitats. Biodiversity loss also has a systemic cause and is inseparable from exploitation – one could even say: associated with the exploitation and rearing of animals. If we reduce animal suffering, we can also better protect ecosystems. Animal-free or at least animal-reduced organic farming is an effective lever to preserve biodiversity. I therefore call on the Commission to do everything it can to ensure justice for people, for nature, for animals and thus for the future of all of us. We need secure funding, comprehensive protection and restoration of habitats, an end to industrial livestock farming, and the development of organic farming, which is also the topic of today's debate. And, of course, the countries of the Global South must also be involved in all this. Let me conclude by quoting Aldous Huxley, who said: “You can't get rid of facts by ignoring them.”
Women’s entrepreneurship in rural and island areas and outermost regions (debate)
Madam President, Today we are talking about women in agriculture, women in rural areas. But we must not pretend that femininity only affects people. Many of you may now look somewhat astonished, but a systematic part of agricultural reality is the exploitation of female living beings. Cows, hens, sows – female animals are at the heart of modern factory farming because their bodies are made productively usable. Cows are continuously impregnated to give milk. Chickens are optimized to lay as many eggs as possible. Sows are kept in highly industrialized reproduction sites, where they are only reduced to reproductive performance. Previously, their fertility is increased by the hormone PMSG from the blood of pregnant mares. This form of exploitation is not gender neutral. It specifically targets the reproductive function of female animals because it is economically viable. This means that femininity is not protected in this case, it is used. And this must finally be called politically what it is: An industrialized, systematic form of exploitation. Of course – I agree with all the previous speakers – the role of people in agriculture, of women, needs to be increased and improved. But please, please let's all see the whole picture together.
How to secure a sustainable future for the EU livestock sector in light of the need to ensure food security, farmers’ resilience and the challenges posed by animal diseases? (debate)
Dear Mr. Colleague, I have listened carefully to your speech. During this one-and-a-half minute – I just recalculated – more than 2,000 animals were slaughtered in Germany alone. But my question is: Where did you get this crazy theory that meat should be healthy if WHO and renowned scientists can say something completely different and also prove that meat has been shown to increase the risk of cancer? I would love to know if you can enlighten me where you got this information from.
How to secure a sustainable future for the EU livestock sector in light of the need to ensure food security, farmers’ resilience and the challenges posed by animal diseases? (debate)
Mr President! Honestly, how many times have I stood at this point and talked about the unbearable suffering of animals in industrial factory farming? But I also talked about the impact on the environment and climate. But this very system that I am talking about is also a place of suffering for people. We are talking about modern slavery, about human trafficking. And how many times when I talk about animals have people rolled their eyes, shook their heads? Perhaps this should encourage them a little more to take responsibility and become active here. Current research clearly shows that many, many people from countries such as India are brought to Germany under completely wrong conditions. They are exploited there, they indebt themselves and their families for the placement fees, live and work in the worst conditions, live in overcrowded shelters and depend exactly on the people who exploit them. And this is not an isolated case. We are talking about a system – a system reminiscent of modern human trafficking. And while animals are killed in cruel conditions, we deprive these very people of their dignity. The current system of animal exploitation stands for animal suffering, wage dumping and above all for one thing: Look away. I say here quite clearly: This system is no longer viable. And Mr. Hansen, we need more than your vision. We need a lot, a lot more. We need an end to industrial livestock farming. We need much stricter controls. We need protection for workers. We need transparency throughout the entire production chain and, of course, the promotion of plant-based alternatives. Millions of people are in favour of neither animals nor humans being exploited. Therefore, dear colleagues, become active for the animals, for the people, for the environment.
Ban on the sale of nitrous oxide to the general public (debate)
Mr President! When we walk through many European cities, we see something that should alarm us all: In front of schools, in parks, on playgrounds, everywhere are empty metal cartridges. At first glance, they seem harmless. But they represent a growing problem: The consumption of nitrous oxide as an intoxicant. This substance is used sensibly in medicine, but today it is increasingly becoming a cheap and quickly available kick for young people, available with coconut ‑ or strawberry flavor. And that's why we have to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions now: Why does it all happen? Why are more and more young people turning to nitrous oxide? Is it downplaying on social media? Is it the apparent legality or easy access to it? Or maybe it shows us something deeper: a generation that is looking for short moments of intoxication because orientation, security or perspectives are missing? What we do know, however, is that the health consequences are real, and they are very serious. Doctors are already reporting permanent neurological problems caused by a substance that is still considered harmless to many. That is why we no longer have to watch as politicians in Europe. First, we need: clear rules for the sale and marketing of nitrous oxide; secondly: a Europe-wide protection of minors in sales; Thirdly: Awareness-raising campaigns that truly reach young people – honest, understandable and without any trivialisation. And fourthly, we must also look at the ecological factors: Millions of empty cartridges and balloons now end up in parks, meadows and waters. They pollute our environment, and they also endanger animals. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner: We must act now for the health of our youth, for animals and for the environment.
Mr President! The reports on EU ‑ enlargement rightly assess democracy, the rule of law and the economy. However, it ignores almost entirely key European concerns – animal welfare and environmental protection – in all candidate countries. These issues are not only morally relevant, but also relevant to health, tourism and social development. In Georgia, animal welfare laws are weak, street animals suffer, and cruel killing methods are still used instead of proven castrations. While there is progress in animal welfare legislation in Moldova, implementation remains weak and insufficient. Both countries also have massive proven environmental problems with water and air pollution, and this underscores the urgency of an EU ‑-compliant environmental policy. Such maladministration affects not only animals, but also the economy and people's quality of life. At the same time, the situation is deteriorating in Turkey, where thousands of street animals continue to be killed. Animals and nature have no voice. We people, we MEPs, must raise our voices and denounce and improve the grievances there.
Amending certain CAP Regulations as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct payment, types of intervention in certain sectors and rural development and annual performance reports, data and interoperability governance, suspensions of payments annual performance clearance and controls and penalties (debate)
The more helpless a living being, the greater its right to human protection from human cruelty – Theodor Heuss. I mention such a quote here, because here there is an explicit demand for fewer controls. And for me it's not a simplification, for me it's dangerous. Of course, inspections take place in Germany, often only every few years or even more rarely, because capacities at veterinary offices are limited. And what should be found in the case of checks that are notified in advance? Animal welfare scandals are more the rule in factory farming and not the exception. And again and again, for example, undercover footage of animal welfare organisations reveals blatant new grievances in mass animal husbandry, including on farms that advertise animal welfare labels. These immense problems arise due to the exclusive focus on profit in this industry. Animal welfare standards are often undermined. We want to achieve a fundamental change in the CAP and not small rum doctorates and a stay on the status quo. We need to move away from intensive agriculture and towards systems that are in harmony with nature, so that sentient beings are not treated as commodities.
Key objectives for the CITES COP20 meeting in Uzbekistan (debate)
Mr President! How can it be that a butterfly that occurs only in one place in the world, namely in the hills around the North Macedonian village of Pletvar, can be legally traded online? The habitat of the Macedonian blueling covers only 1.5 square kilometers. This butterfly is crucial for local biodiversity, and there are only around 1,000 specimens left. While North Macedonia radically bans catching and exporting, intra-EU trade is legal due to gaps in the CITES system. In the run-up to COP20, many states have made proposals to protect their native, often endemic species. Therefore, my question: Will the Commission support these efforts and recognise that international cooperation outside the EU is essential to effectively control trade and protect biodiversity? We must not allow legal loopholes to endanger species that are relevant to entire ecosystems. CITES needs to be further developed to protect even more species worldwide.
Polarisation and increased repression in Serbia, one year after the Novi Sad tragedy (debate)
Madam President, For many months, citizens and students in Serbia have been protesting against corruption and the increasing autocracy in their country. How does the government react to this? With violence and arrests. Students are still in detention. The situation of the media is also alarming. Reporters Without Borders have documented 76 physical assaults on journalists since January, 34 of them by the police – the highest figure in two decades. Air pollution is one of the worst in Europe. Recycling paper and plastic is almost impossible. Smoking in restaurants is allowed. In addition, over 20,000 stray animals suffer in Belgrade alone. Funds for animal shelters and castrations are almost non-existent. Is Vučić leading his country on a European course? It doesn't seem so. In the meantime, the President of the Commission is meeting with him in Belgrade as if everything were in order. This image sends the wrong signal. Our support belongs to pro-European citizens, students and journalists, not to an autocratic regime that oppresses its own people.
Thank you for this important question. Medical progress, the protection of people, of citizens all over the world, can be ensured, and at the same time animal welfare can be granted. As has been mentioned several times before, the vast majority of animal experiments – there are figures, I believe, 80, 90 percent or even higher – cannot be transferred to humans. We're just not monkeys, rats, dogs and the like. And despite all this, these tests are often prescribed without really having any effect. There is really broad, comprehensive research on alternatives, called NAMs. There are many approaches, AI comes into play there, there are different cell cultures, there are many possibilities.
Mr President! More than 1.2 million citizens in the EU call for the citizens' initiative Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics An end to animal testing. Did you all know that in the EU, rats still have to swallow new detergents for weeks just to check tumor safety? Or that fish die in toxic substances just to test the environmental compatibility of new perfume ingredients? This is despite the fact that data is often already available and modern animal-free alternatives are also available. The ‘One substance, one assessment’ package aims to create a common data platform and more transparency between authorities. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in practice, and animals are often tested several times for the same chemical, because the data is not exchanged. This reform is a real step forward, but it can only be the beginning. The implementation of the chemicals package and the focus on reducing the burden on industry – these things must not lead to under-protection of consumers within the EU or even to a departure from the plan to abolish and replace animal testing wherever possible.
Mr President! Directly in advance: I'm the next one who wants to talk about it. Ladies and gentlemen, have you seen the headlines lately? Hundreds of Europeans, seriously ill after accidentally buying a vegan bratwurst. Have you seen these headlines? I don't. Dear Ms Imart, an initiative such as your amendment 113 would completely ignore a judgment of the European Court of Justice stating that the current legislation is already completely sufficient to protect consumers. Product names such as vegan soy schnitzel are well introduced. And surveys show that around 80 percent of consumers have no objections when using such well-known terms. The aim of such designations is simply to make it clear what it tastes like – for example, schnitzel. Plant-based foods are crucial for achieving EU targets in areas such as climate, health, animal welfare, but also food security. Europe is the world leader in the market for plant-based meat products – with a market volume of €2.7 billion in 2024. And this sector promises long-term opportunities for farmers and also more choice for consumers. Therefore, tomorrow, please vote against this amendment and against the patronage of consumers.