News

European academics have recommended the introduction of a new type of labelling on food labels to provide consumers with information on how much carbon footprint the production of specific foods or beverages has left. With this information, consumers would then be able to understand how much environmental impact their food production has and would be able to choose more environmentally friendly and climate-friendly alternatives. Large retail chains, including Tesco, had already dealt with a similar type of labelling in 2016, but dropped the idea due to the complexity involved.
More information is available here.

Food prices in the European Union are rising rapidly, by 2% between July 2018 and July 2019. According to statistics, food prices in the European Union increased by an average of 3.01% per year between 1997 and 2019. In 2016, households spent a total of EUR 1.123 billion on food and beverages, EU households spend 13.5% of their total budget on food on average. The rise in prices in the EU is influenced by a number of factors, including increased taxes, food tariffs, political and social events, exchange rates, weather fluctuations and climate change. The most expensive foods are in Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark, while the cheapest are in Ukraine.
More information is available here.

Malta banned the use of the active substance chlorpyrifos on 13/08/2019, whose further use was not recommended by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) earlier this month. Malta, in response to EFSA's recommendations, has introduced an immediate ban on its use, even before the European Commission has reached the conclusion. According to EFSA results, this active substance may be neurotoxic, cause neurological development in children, as well as changes in human DNA. So far, the substance is used in the cultivation of oranges or broccoli. Malta will become the eighth European country where chlorpyrifos is not allowed to be used. In addition, in the context of the EFSA recommendation, the substance is likely to be banned in the EU after the current license expires, i.e. after 31/01/2020.
More information is available here.

The European Union demands the protection of the geographical origin of food and beverages (GIs) for a total of 236 items under the Trade Agreement with Australia. Food and beverages that would be protected under a trade agreement include, for example, Scottish beef, Feta, Roquefort, Gorgonzola, Parmigiano Reggiano or Grana Padano. From the Czech production, the protection should apply to Budweiser beer, Budweiser brew, Czech beer, České Budějovice beer and Žatec hops. Australia will launch a public consultation on the European Union proposal before committing itself to respect protection. The next round of negotiations on the EU-Australia trade agreement will take place in October this year.
More information is available here.

Scientists and academics from the German Centre for Biodiversity Research (iDiv), the Helmholtz Environmental Research Centre (UFZ), and the University of Göttingen have analysed the European Commission's legislative proposals for the CAP post 2020. Although the European Union is committed to enhancing sustainability, these commitments are not sufficiently reflected in the legislative proposals, according to German academics. Industrial agriculture leads to a decline in biodiversity, but the proposed legislation is, according to the results, a step backwards rather than a solution to the problem and meeting EU commitments. The study considers the continuing support of the system of direct payments per hectare to be a major problem, leading to an unfair distribution of CAP funds to farmers. According to the study, only 1.8% of beneficiaries receive up to 32% of all agricultural subsidies. It is one of the tools that, according to academics, is ineffective, environmentally unfavourable and unfair from a social point of view. The instruments under the second pillar of the CAP are, according to a study for environmental and climate protection, more appropriate, so the authors' criticism is aimed not only at the fact that the budget for the II. pillar is significantly lower than the budget for the I. Pillar, but also for the fact that the Commission proposes a budget reduction by up to 28% for the II. Pillar after 2020. In the opinion of the authors of the study, the Commission has given way to pressure from lobbying organizations fighting for their own interests.
More information is available here.