March has been marked by significant legislative progress in the EU as well as by the continued debate between traditional vs alternative foods.
The Council of the EU reached an agreement on their position on new genomic techniques (NGTs), paving the way for negotiations with the Parliament. Meanwhile, Italian agricultural lobby Coldiretti and far-right groups have pushed back against lab-grown meat and plant-based labelling, fuelling debates about tradition and innovation in the food sector.
This past month we have also witnessed heated disputes over ultra-processed foods (UPF) and their classification. The University of Copenhagen – supported by Novo Nordisk Foundation – attempted to refine the Nova system but this faced strong opposition from its original creator and numerous public health advocates.
The European Commission is also facing intense scrutiny after it seemingly abandoned plans to introduce harmonised front of pack nutrition labelling in the EU. Our European Affairs Director and Food and Sustainability lead, Andrea Gutierrez-Solana, provided some comments on this development to Food Manufacture.
In this issue of the Monthly Munch, she also shares her thoughts on Trump’s Presidency in the U.S., the political climate on the other side of the Atlantic, and its potential impact on EU food and sustainability policy.
POLICY AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
Council of the EU finally agrees on its position regarding new genomic techniques legislation
On 14th March, Member States finally agreed on their general approach to the legislative proposal for plants obtained with certain new genomic techniques (NGTs). The proposalaims to simplify the authorisation of plants obtained using NGTs when their characteristics could occur naturally or through conventional breeding. The Council have suggested several changes to the original Commission proposal in their negotiating mandate, including allowing member states to opt out of cultivating non-conventional-like NGT plants. They ask to implement measures for member states to avoid the unintended presence of conventional-like NGT plants in organic farming, particularly in regions with specific geographical conditions. On the contentious issue of patents, the Council suggests a voluntary disclosure system, meaning that companies wouldn’t be required to indicate on seed packaging whether an NGT crop is patented. Instead, firms would publish patent information online. While welcomed by Farm Europe, environmentalists and organic farming groups, such as IFOAM Organics Europe, have criticised the Council’s stance for failing to protect farmers and breeders from patent claims. Now that the Council has adopted its position, inter-institutional negotiations can begin with the Parliament.
Coldiretti and the far right challenge the EU over novel foods and plant-based labelling
On 19th March, Coldiretti, Italy’s biggest agricultural lobby protested outside the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) headquarters in Parma, demanding stricter scrutiny on novel foods, including lab-grown meat and precision fermentation. They argue these technologies threaten traditional agriculture and food safety and should undergo pharmaceutical-level evaluations before market approval. Scientists criticised the protest as an attempt to pressure EFSA, undermining both independent scientific research and the EU’s strict regulatory system on novel foods, which they argue is already one of the most rigorous in the world. Meanwhile, European far right groups are opposing plant-based products, particularly when it comes to labelling. Recently, some members of the political group Patriots for Europe complained to the European Commission about an EU Court of Justice’s decision that allows plant-based foods to be labelled with terms like “steak,” “burger,” or “ham.” They argue that this misleads consumers about the products' ingredients, taste, and nutritional value. But the European Commission backed the ruling, stating that if packaging clearly states a product is plant-based, consumers can make informed choices, and that while individual countries can decide on legal food names, they can’t ban common terms like “steak” for non-meat alternatives. With Coldiretti and other groups pushing back against change, and scientists defending existing regulations, the future of food in Europe is shaping up to be a battleground between tradition and innovation.
Food scientists clash over plans to overhaul Nova classification of UPFs
In February, the Novo Nordisk Foundation announced a new project with the University of Copenhagen to develop a better understanding of how food processing methods affect health. The initiative highlighted concerns that focusing too heavily on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) could risk demonising certain products which provide essential nutrients. The term “ultra-processed food” was coined around 15 years ago by Professor Carlos Monteiro and his colleagues at the University of Sao Paolo, and it has since become a buzzword in discussions about healthier diets. The widely used Nova classification system, also developed by Monteiro, categorises foods based on their level of processing, from unprocessed or minimally processed to processed and ultra-processed. However, there have been criticisms of Nova for being too simplistic. The Novo Nordisk Foundation’s project aimed to create a more nuanced version, which it dubbed “Nova 2.0”. However, upon learning of this, Monteiro published an open letter criticising the project and requesting for them to not use the terms “Nova” and “ultra-processed” in their work. He gained widespread support from scientists around the world who signed a letter of support. The team at the University of Copenhagen agreed to Monteiro’s wishes and removed these terms from their project. While efforts to introduce more nuance into discussions around UPFs would be welcomed by many, the controversy surrounding this project underscores how polarising the debate remains. The strong reaction highlights the complexities of balancing public health concerns with scientific accuracy and industry interests.
European Commission appears to abandon mandatory FOPNL
The European Commission’s commitment to mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) has been thrown into doubt following a press conference in which a Commission spokesperson refused to confirm whether it remains on the EU’s agenda. During the briefing on 28th February, the Commission official only stated that efforts should focus on providing transparent information while balancing regulatory burdens for businesses. This lack of clarity has raised concerns over the policy measure. Despite the Commission’s hesitation, industry leaders such as Nestlé and Lidl remain steadfast in their commitment to FOPNL, with both using the Nutri-Score system, once seen as the frontrunner for EU-wide adoption. Nestlé, an early adopter, has reaffirmed its commitment to the labelling scheme, even after recent adjustments to the algorithm caused some brands, including Danone, to withdraw their support. Nutri-Score has long been a contentious issue within the EU. While countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain have embraced it, opposition from Italy and other sceptics has stymied efforts to make it mandatory. Critics argue that the system unfairly penalises traditional foods, such as olive oil and Parmesan, and some academics have raised concerns about its scientific validity. With the Commission now seemingly reluctant to take a decisive stance, the future of FOPNL will likely depend on voluntary industry adoption and national-level policies, leaving businesses and consumers facing a fragmented regulatory landscape.
What is the influence of the Trump administration on the EU’s sustainability policy?
Donald Trump’s return to the White House is already reshaping global trade, regulation, and environmental policies, creating significant challenges for the EU’s sustainability ambitions. The new administration’s deregulatory stance, trade pressures, and scepticism toward climate policies is putting pressure on the EU to rethink its green agenda in order to maintain economic competitiveness.
The U.S. Government is aggressively rolling back environmental regulations, lowering production costs for U.S. industries, including agribusiness. In a global economy, this puts European farmers and manufacturers at a disadvantage, as they must comply with stricter EU sustainability laws. Trump also is using trade policy to pressure the EU into making concessions, particularly regarding sustainability-related measures like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which they see as a potential trade barrier that could disadvantage U.S. exports. If Trump escalates trade tensions, the EU may face pressure to ease this and other sustainability policies. Given his aggressive negotiation style, it would not be surprising if Trump goes on also to demand greater market access for U.S. agricultural products, potentially challenging EU regulations on GMOs, pesticides, and food safety.
The EU has been a global leader in sustainability over the past few years, but recent internal political and economic pressures already had led to a reassessment of its environmental goals. Economic concerns, inflation, and energy costs have taken precedence for many voters, leading to declining support for Green parties across Europe. This raises questions about the future of the EU's Green Deal and its sustainability commitments, and it has already resulted in delays to key sustainability directives, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), now postponed until the end of the Commission’s mandate.
In this complex landscape, the EU appears to be taking a cautious "wait and see" approach, maintaining sustainability goals while pausing any further regulatory efforts and delaying the implementation of key legislation. The Trump administration’s reckless and threatening tone is a big gamble that might backfire in the medium to long run. The Commission’s current approach to sustainability policy might be a plan to weather the storm while remaining ready in case the internal and external political context changes again and becomes more favourable for its initial ambitions.
WHO IS SHAPING THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS?
This month’s top industry initiatives selected by the Whitehouse team:
- Sainsbury’s to use biofuel produced from its food waste to power half of its HGVs at its Bristol distribution centre: Sainsbury’s has announced that from March, 30 of its HGV trucks at its Emerald Park distribution park will be powered by biofuel produced directly from Sainsbury’s food waste. The move will save Sainsbury’s more than 3000 tonnes of CO2 annually;
- Budweiser brewer AB InBev to trial a refillable bottle scheme in Newport, Wales: The project remains in its early stages, the trial could begin within the year. AB InBev already brews all its products in the UK with 100% renewable electricity from its own wind turbine and two solar farms. The brewer has also removed plastic rings from its portfolio and met its goal of brewing with 100% British grown barley – thus reducing carbon emissions and championing local agriculture.
Think that your sustainable initiative deserves a shout out? Please contact: vivien.keenleyside@whitehousecomms.com
ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Open consultations
Engage with these consultations to shape the issues affecting your organisation:
- European Commission Consultation on EFSA’s performance. Open until 1stApril. (link)
- Call for expressions of interest in EFSA’s advice for Novel Food SMEs. Open until 12th June. (link)
- EFSA’s open call for food additives analytical and use level data. Open until 30th June. (link)
Events calendar
- 31st March: Priorities for children’s food and nutrition policy - advertising, obesity and school meals (Online)
- 9th April: Securing Europe’s biotech future – how can biosecurity drive competitiveness? (Brussels)
- 29th April: Conference on Next steps for gene-edited foods in England, (Online)
- 8th May: Conference on the Vision for Agriculture and Food (Brussels)
- 19th May: The Omnibus Package – What implications for the EU’s sustainability credentials and European manufacturers? (Online)
Get in touch: Andrea Gutierrez-Solana, Director, Food, Public Health and Sustainability andrea.solana@whitehousecomms.com