{"id":47749,"date":"2021-05-26T09:09:57","date_gmt":"2021-05-26T07:09:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bioecoactual.com\/?p=47749"},"modified":"2021-05-26T09:09:57","modified_gmt":"2021-05-26T07:09:57","slug":"europe-rejects-plant-based-dairy-censorship-landmark-sustainability-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bioecoactual.com\/en\/2021\/05\/26\/europe-rejects-plant-based-dairy-censorship-landmark-sustainability-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"Europe rejects \u2018plant-based dairy censorship\u2019 in landmark sustainability battle"},"content":{"rendered":"

The European Parliament, The European Council and The European Commission have rejected Amendment 171<\/strong>, the climate-hostile food regulation challenged as an attack on sustainability by nearly half a million consumers in a petition<\/a> started by ProVeg International. <\/p>\n

\n
\"Rejected
@ProVeg International<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
Leading NGOs, including Greenpeace and WWF, as well as Greta Thunberg<\/a> and leading plant-based companies joined ProVeg in a landmark sustainability battle on the grounds of \u2018plant-based dairy censorship\u2019.<\/div>\n

A common-sense victory<\/h2>\n
The decision reflects scientific consensus, one that has been publicly endorsed by the IPCC, the FAO, WHO, and the EAT-Lancet Commission, all of whose recommendations are unanimous on the urgent need for a move towards plant-based diets<\/strong>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“This is a common-sense victory. Citizens, industry and experts have spoken and the EU listened. It would be absurd to censor plant-based products at the same time as telling consumers to switch to a plant-based diet. Imagine censoring electric cars or recycled paper. We applaud the EU for its clear-sightedness under immense pressure from environmentally reckless interests” said Jasmijn de Boo<\/strong>, Vice President, ProVeg International.<\/div>\n

Progressive climate priorities<\/h3>\n
In a critical turning point for healthy, sustainable diets in Europe, Amendment 171<\/strong> \u2013 the draft legislation which sought to impose severe new restrictions on plant-based foods, proposed by the European Parliament\u2019s AGRI Committee \u2013 has been dropped, ahead of the EU\u2019s super trilogues. The European Green Deal, and its sustainable-food roadmap, the Farm to Fork Strategy, represent Europe\u2019s progressive climate priorities. However, AM171 directly contradicted Europe\u2019s own sustainability goals, inviting environmentally reckless lobbying by the meat and dairy industries.<\/div>\n

Recommendations are unanimous on the urgent need for a move towards plant-based diets<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“There is a broad consensus among food, dietetics and nutrition authorities, and international organisations that, for both health and environmental reasons, our diet should include more and more plant-based products and less and less animal-based products” according to Consumer and User Confederation.<\/strong><\/div>\n

The plant-based industry is playing a vital role<\/h3>\n
“It is a shame that this amendment was even on the table in the first place. At this point, we can’t get back the precious time that was lost trying to find a compromise over this nonsensical amendment, but we can be very happy that negotiators finally came to their senses and decided to drop it. The plant-based industry is playing a vital role in the fields of environmental sustainability, human health and animal welfare and the EU must support its growth, not halt it” said Francisco Guerreiro MEP.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\"\"
\u00a9NotCo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Walkthrough of Amendment 171<\/h3>\n
The European Parliament, the Commission, and the Council of Ministers began the trilogue negotiations, which cover topics under Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (CMO), on 21 April. Negotiations related to CAP and CMO started in November 2020, with AM171 announced shortly after a public commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030. The Amendment was not subject to the normal process of public scrutiny via an impact assessment or open consultation, prompting an outcry from consumers and the plant-based sector. The regulation would have only affected the plant-based sector.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Widely condemned in the lead-up to the decision, the amendment was called out by an extensive and diverse group of stakeholders, including:<\/div>\n