Elon Musk has made it clear. He’s going to inhabit Mars. But the first natural step, he says, will be the moon. We’ve reported on the moon base station. NASA knows that plants can grow on the moon. And countries like China and Russia have declared they will build cities there too using nuclear power. Stepping up to democratize the moon is an EU-funded company, Deep Space Energy, which has just raised more than $1 million USD as a seed fund to help it create energy generators on the moon. It’s a bid to strengthen the European sovereign space and defense industry and power Moon surface exploration.

The researchers are from Latvia: “Our technology, which has already been validated in the laboratory, has several applications across the defence and space sectors.

“First, we’re developing an auxiliary energy source to enhance the resilience of strategic satellites. It provides the redundancy of satellite power systems by supplying backup power that does not depend on solar energy, making it crucial for high-value military reconnaissance assets,” says Mihails Ščepanskis, founder and CEO of the company.

Based in Riga, the company is developing a radioisotopic generator toward commercialisation. The electricity comes from nuclear decay — a nuclear process. And the equipment does not include a nuclear reactor which could explode.

The funding was made up of its €350k pre-Seed round led by Outlast Fund and Linas Sargautis, an angel investor and a former co-founder of NanoAvionics. The company also secured additional €580k in public contracts and grants by the European Space Agency (ESA), NATO DIANA, and the Latvian government. It’s not a huge sum of money for such an ambitious project but it’s a start.

European and American military and space technologies are what leads to new inventions in medicine, ecology and renewable energy.

Military spy satellites evolved into Earth-monitoring satellites that now track deforestation (Amazon, Congo), (see MIT using AI and imaging for trees in cities) they can monitor methane leaks and pollution; and satellites predict droughts and crop failures.

Military thermal imaging using infrared vision is now used to detect inflammation and vascular disease, it can screen for breast cancer and detect fevers at airports.

In the 2025–2026 period, EU-Startups has reported substantial capital flows into the European SpaceTech sector, primarily at Seed and Series A stage.

Germany’s Reflex Aerospace secured €50 million to scale sovereign satellite platforms, while France’s Infinite Orbits raised €40 million to expand in-orbit servicing capabilities. Also in France, Look Up attracted €50 million to grow its radar-based space surveillance network, and UNIVITY secured €31 million to accelerate development of a space-based 5G constellation.

In Germany, Marble Imaging raised €5.3 million to scale its very high resolution Earth observation satellites ahead of launch, while Spain’s Kreios Space secured €8 million to advance propulsion systems for very low Earth orbit. Italy’s Astradyne raised €2 million to commercialise ultralight solar panels, and Spain’s Orbital Paradigm closed a €1.5 million pre-Seed round to develop reusable space capsules.

Collectively, these rounds represent approximately €187 million in disclosed funding moving into European SpaceTech across adjacent segments including satellite infrastructure, propulsion, communications, servicing and observation.

Deep Space Energy says it will put a focus on energy resilience for satellites and lunar missions rather than platform deployment.

“As Europe is trying to become more independent, it is imperative to produce satellites with advanced capabilities on our own. Our technology provides an auxiliary energy source for satellites, which makes them more resilient to non-kinetic attacks and malfunctions,” Mihails adds.

Founded in 2022, Deep Space Energy is developing a new radioisotope power generator for space that uses the heat produced by the nuclear self-decay of radioisotopes – materials extractable from waste of commercial nuclear reactors.

The product aims for applications in deep space science missions, lunar surface missions and high-value defense satellites. Their solution converts that heat into electric power, requiring 5 times less radioisotope fuel than a thermo-electric generator (RTG), currently used in space.

The company highlighted that its radioisotope-based energy generator is not designed for any kind of weapons. It will target high-value, dual-use satellites to increase their resilience and operational reliability. The primary focus is on satellites operating in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), Geostationary Orbit (GEO) and Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO), which are all critical for modern military reconnaissance and early-warning systems.

These satellites support a range of defence functions, from synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
satellites for detecting troop concentrations through clouds and foliage, to signal intelligence for intercepting communications and radio transmissions, as well as missile-launch detection, which is essential for anti-missile defense systems.

Egita Poļanska, partner at the lead investor Outlast Fund, shares: “Space energy tech has been stuck with certain limitations for decades, but we’re finally seeing the pieces come together for a real breakthrough – new materials, smarter power systems, and actual commercial demand for lunar operations.

“Deep Space Energy is building the infrastructure that will literally power the next chapter of space exploration and industry. As Europe ramps up its space ambitions, we need our own companies to lead in these foundational technologies. We’re thrilled to back this team and honestly pretty excited to have an actual moonshot in our portfolio, in the most literal sense possible.”

In the long term, the company aims to focus on the Moon economy. The radioisotope power generator looks to address critical energy challenges in the next phase of lunar exploration, including NASA and ESA’s Artemis, Argonaut and lunar rover programs, as well as the Moon Village framework led by the Moon Village Association. In particular, the technology is designed to support lunar night survival and operations in permanently shadowed regions, enabling extended scouting and prospecting missions.

On the Moon, where the temperatures at night drop below 150 degrees Celsius, and nights last for roughly 354 hours, moonrovers can’t rely on solar power.

The company’s technology requires approximately 2kg of Americium-241 fuel to generate 50W of power for a lunar rover, compared with around 10kg of radioisotope material needed by legacy RTG systems for comparable output. Given current projections that Americium-241 production capacity will reach around 10kg per year by the mid-2030s, this efficiency could enable lunar exploration missions to begin more than five years earlier and at up to five times the mission volume.

According to Ščepanskis, the company’s technology can significantly enhance the economics of moon rover missions by enabling them to last multiple day-night cycles up to a few years. The sole expenses of bringing payload to the Moon cost up to a million euros per kilogram; thus, by enhancing the lifetime of the rovers, the company helps to save hundreds of millions.

The post EU startup aiming to generate energy on moon villages appeared first on Green Prophet.

Europe is dealing with polluted water and the EU wants polluters to pay. They are pushing back

We just got back from Berlin where we stayed at the world of the Michelberger Hotel. We’d already read about the pollution in the rivers that circle that city.  A new Yale Environment 360 investigation reveals that a large-scale survey of European rivers has detected an alarming 504 harmful substances in the rivers — including 175 pharmaceuticals like painkillers and antidepressants — in waterways stretching from Germany to Spain.

The findings have alarmed scientists and public health officials who warn that even low-dose residues of medicines and cosmetics are reshaping aquatic ecosystems. Fish and amphibians exposed to drugs such as diclofenac show hormone disruption, sex changes, and organ damage.

Diclofenac is a widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) — the same drug class as ibuprofen or aspirin. It’s prescribed to treat pain, arthritis, and inflammation, often under brand names like Voltaren, Cataflam, or Dicloflex.

However, it’s also one of the most problematic pharmaceuticals for the environment. After being excreted or washed off, diclofenac passes through sewage systems largely unchanged. In waterways, it can accumulate in fish and aquatic mammals, damaging their livers, kidneys, and reproductive systems.

Studies have shown that chronic exposure can cause organ failure and sex changes in fish, and even contributed to the mass die-off of vultures in South Asia, where livestock treated with diclofenac poisoned scavenging birds.

Because of its toxicity and persistence, diclofenac has become a symbol of the pharmaceutical pollution crisis now being addressed by the EU’s new wastewater directive.

To tackle the growing “chemization” of Europe’s rivers, the EU has adopted a revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, mandating a fourth stage of purification — or “quaternary treatment” — using ozonation or activated carbon to strip out micropollutants. Plants must begin upgrading between 2027 and 2045, with the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries required to pay at least 80 percent of the costs, following the polluter-pays principle.

Yet those same industries are now pushing back. Trade groups and companies including L’Oréal and generic-drug manufacturers have filed legal challenges at the European Court of Justice, arguing that the rule unfairly singles them out while sparing other polluters like the food and chemical sectors.

Member companies of Medicines for Europe is one trade group who is engaged in the legal case include Accord Healthcare; Adamed Pharma; Fresenius Kabi; Insud Pharma; Polpharma; Sandoz; STADA; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; Viatris; Zentiva.

Cosmetics industry players (though specific individual cosmetic companies are less publicly named in the same detail) are also flagged as being part of the push-back, via their trade bodies. These include companies such as Chanel and L’Oréal in broader media coverage, according to the Yale report.

At Berlin’s Schönerlinde wastewater plant, a pilot ozonation system set to open in 2027 offers a glimpse of the future. “There’s no doubt who has to pay for it — the industries that cause the pollution,” says Andreas Kraus, Berlin’s permanent secretary for climate protection and environment.

Environmental economists warn that delaying these upgrades will only allow micropollutants to seep deeper into groundwater and drinking water. As Green Prophet has reported, water contamination is not only a European crisis: pharmaceuticals and pesticides are already affecting rivers from the Jordan Valley to the Nile Delta.

The debate over who should clean Europe’s water — polluters or the public — is now a litmus test for whether the continent’s Green Deal commitments can survive political and industrial pressure.

All the more reason to filter your home water. Green Prophet has featured solutions like the Berkey Filter, trusted by many environmentalists. Some go a step further, using reverse osmosis systems along with Mayu for all drinking water and then re-adding essential micronutrients. Others prefer living water drawn from a clean, untouched spring. We’ve also featured American wastewater treatment companies like BioprocessH2O which is helping companies avoid reparations by cleaning up the first time at the source.

Whatever your choice, the message is clear: we are poisoning our own wells with the very medicines meant to heal us. Something has to change — and it starts with awareness and action at home.

Related Reading on Green Prophet

• Sea creatures and reefs are taking blood pressure medication and laxatives
• Water management using the Israeli method, a report from a World Bank expert
• Are you drinking your country’s drug stores?

The post Polluters like L’Oreal may need to pay for polluting EU waterways appeared first on Green Prophet.

Al Gore warned in An Inconvenient Truth: “We are witnessing a collision between our civilization and the Earth.” In Brussels, President Ursula von der Leyen often echoes that urgency. But behind the podium, a series of fresh EU moves points the other way—toward loosening rules, delaying targets, and giving industry more “breathing space.” It’s the kind of slow-turn that watchdogs call corporate or climate capture.

A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science & Technology Letters synthesizes decades of evidence on how powerful sectors shape the institutions meant to regulate them. The authors—led by Prof. Alex Ford—warn that such influence will obstruct progress on the UN’s “triple planetary crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution. Their description of subtle, systemic steering reads like a checklist for Europe’s latest policy pivots.

In June, the Commission hit the brakes on the flagship anti-greenwashing law—the Green Claims Directive—saying the file had become too burdensome for small firms and signaling it could be shelved. That pause/withdrawal would weaken proof requirements for “carbon-neutral,” “biodegradable,” and similar claims—an own goal for consumer trust.

Through the summer, the executive also opened the door to further “simplifications” of environmental law after waves of industry criticism—reducing the scope of corporate sustainability reporting and easing due-diligence expectations in supply chains, while entertaining calls to soften other green files. The EU Ombudsman is reviewing whether these weakenings advanced without adequate public input.

Member states, for their part, are pressing to dilute or delay other pillars. A majority have pushed for more changes to the EU’s anti-deforestation law before its rollout, arguing producers can’t meet requirements—despite the law being a world-first attempt to curb imported forest loss. And as the New York Climate Week conversations ramp up, the bloc is struggling to agree the 2040 climate target—diplomats say a deal has slipped, risking credibility just as the world compares notes on ambition. Another failing of a mammoth EU organization not able to stand for anything in unity?

None of this proves intent to stall climate action. But the pattern—weakening consumer protections against greenwashing, trimming corporate accountability, softening land-use safeguards, and hesitating on the next-decade target—mirrors the “tactics of delay” described in the capture literature. As the new study notes, influence is often quiet and procedural, not headline-grabbing.

Climate Week exists to turn targets into timelines and timelines into budgets. If the EU wants to model leadership, the path is straightforward: restore a strong Green Claims law with independent verification; close loopholes in supply-chain due diligence instead of widening them; protect the integrity of the anti-deforestation regime; and lock in a science-based 2040 goal that keeps 1.5°C within reach.

The post Ursula’s EU at Climate Week with big speeches, quiet rollbacks—and a whiff of climate capture appeared first on Green Prophet.

The recent revelations that more than 24,000 industrial livestock farms now operate across Europe should come as a wake-up call to European policymakers. In the UK alone, the number of megafarms grew by over 200 between 2017 and 2023. France, Germany and Spain are not far behind. Far from being an outlier, the European food system is becoming more intensive, more environmentally damaging, and more consolidated. Yet the EU continues to invest political capital in the wrong tools.

One of those tools is front-of-pack labelling, most notably Nutri-Score, the colour-coded system first developed in France and, at a certain point, promoted by the European Commission as a solution to rising obesity. It is, by now, abundantly clear that it isn’t working. Not only has Nutri-Score failed to produce any measurable reduction in obesity rates, but it has also encouraged producers to prioritise nutrient “tweaks” over meaningful food system change. The result is a rise in industrialised, uniform food that fits perfectly with factory farming conditions.

An outdated model in a collapsing system

The European food model is at a crossroads. On one side, we hear ambitious rhetoric about agroecology, biodiversity, and healthy diets. On the other side, we see the rapid expansion of intensive livestock farms, producing tens of millions of animals under conditions that routinely breach environmental regulations, pollute protected areas, and contribute to collapsing wildlife populations.

This contradiction is not accidental. It is the direct result of a policy approach that prioritises reformulation over reform, and labelling over systemic change. Nutrition labelling, for all its visibility, has not delivered improved health outcomes in any of the countries where it has been implemented. What it has delivered is a new layer of complexity. Traditional producers are disadvantaged, while industrial production systems benefit from standardisation and scalability.

The Nutri-Score illusion

Nutri-Score is emblematic of this failure. Built on a simplistic algorithm that assigns grades based on fats, sugars, and salt per 100 grams, it ignores where food comes from, how it’s produced, or how it fits into real-world diets. This kind of labelling rewards processed uniformity and penalises diversity. It pushes producers toward nutritionally “optimised” products that suit industrial supply chains rather than sustainable food systems.

More importantly, it misleads consumers into thinking that food can be reduced to a single letter or colour. This illusion of simplicity may serve marketing objectives, but it does nothing to support meaningful dietary change. If it did, we would have seen results by now. Yet obesity rates continue to rise, including in France, the birthplace of Nutri-Score.

Even the industry is walking away

Even some of the food industry’s biggest players are now distancing themselves from the system. In May, Nestlé announced it would withdraw Nutri-Score from its products in Switzerland, its home country, even before Nestlé’s decision, Swiss food giants Migros and Emmi had already withdrawn Nutri-Score from their products. Their reasoning was simple: the system is no longer credible.

When Europe’s largest food manufacturer abandons a label it once promoted—and does so in the country where it is headquartered—it sends a clear signal. Industry sees what policymakers are reluctant to admit: that nutrition labelling is a dead end. It does not shift consumer behaviour at scale. It does not support sustainable production, nor does it build public trust.

A distraction from real reform

The continued focus on front-of-pack labelling reflects a broader institutional failure: the preference for symbolic gestures over structural reform. Labels are easy to promote. They’re visually appealing. They create the appearance of action. But in practice, they distract from deeper policy questions about subsidies, trade, and the true cost of food.

Worse, they reinforce the incentives of industrial-scale production. Labelling schemes reward products based on narrow nutrient profiles while ignoring production methods, ecological impact, or cultural value. This encourages the very trends—efficiency, uniformity, and scale—that underpin the factory farm boom.

The evidence isn’t there. It never was.

Proponents of labelling often cite behavioural studies suggesting that front-of-pack systems can influence consumer choices. But these are short-term, tightly controlled experiments. In the real world, the evidence tells a different story. Countries with the most aggressive labelling strategies continue to experience rising obesity, increasing rates of diet-related illness, and ongoing environmental degradation. For example, in Chile—one of the most aggressive countries in Latin America with mandatory black-octagon labels since 2016—obesity prevalence rose from roughly 68% of adults in 2010 to about 79% by 2022, despite the labelling and other health measures.  If labelling worked, the data would reflect that.

The truth is, nutrition cannot be reduced to a traffic light or an algorithm. Eating habits are shaped by culture, price, availability, education, and social norms. The idea that better consumer “information” alone can drive public health outcomes is not just simplistic. It has been repeatedly disproven.

If Europe is serious about fixing its food system, it needs to let go of the illusion that labelling is a shortcut to health. Real solutions lie elsewhere: in supporting sustainable farming, reforming subsidies, regulating marketing to children, improving access to nutritious food, and investing in public health. These are the interventions that work, not stickers on packages.

Lessons from a broken system

The Guardian’s recent reporting on Europe’s megafarms highlights what happens when policy drifts away from reality. The rise of factory farming is not a coincidence. It is the logical outcome of a system built around scale, standardisation, and superficial metrics. Nutri-Score helps prop up those sorts of systems.

The EU must stop pretending that labelling is a public health strategy. It isn’t. It’s a communications tool—and one that has failed to deliver. The sooner Brussels moves past this failed model, the sooner it can begin the serious work of building a food system that serves people, protects animals, and restores the planet.

The post Nutri-Score and the Factory Farm Illusion appeared first on Green Prophet.

Following the breakdown of the Colombia-hosted COP16 summit in November, global leaders reconvened in Rome in late February for a fresh round of the U.N.’s annual biodiversity summit. While fraught negotiations have this time led to a last-minute deal, critics have already lamented that the agreement lacks the ambition needed to meaningfully tackle biodiversity challenges.

The previous COP16 gathering notably collapsed without a deal on nature restoration financing in developing countries, creating ongoing tensions between Global North and South governments. Deepening geopolitical disputes have since compounded the negotiations’ obstacles, with the new U.S. administration’s aversion to environmental multilateralism and sweeping foreign aid cuts underscoring the ongoing obstacles facing global cooperation.

In this climate, relying on government-led action to curb the global biodiversity crisis is no longer viable, making the private sector’s contribution increasingly vital. Moving forward, large companies from industries traditionally associated with biodiversity loss must now step up, with leading players in the mining, energy and maritime sectors already showing the way.

Political action outpaced by global crisis

Adopted at the COP15 conference in December 2022, the global goal of halting and reversing nature loss by 2030 is rapidly slipping out of reach, with political will failing to match the gravity of a deepening biodiversity crisis. Since 1970, global wildlife populations have plummeted by over 70% and one million species are now on the brink of extinction, while unsustainable agriculture, pollution and deforestation continue ravaging ecosystems at an alarming pace.

Although the fresh deal struck at COP16 has been embraced by certain leaders as a breakthrough for international cooperation, many others – particularly from the Global South – have expressed frustration at its lack of urgency and concrete action. Bolivia’s negotiator, Juan Carlos Alurralde Tejada, has notably decried the agreement’s failure to deliver real progress, warning that prolonged bureaucratic delays will only worsen the environmental collapse. The so-called solutions – such as agreeing to a global biodiversity fund in 2028 and establishing the voluntary Cali Fund without any financial pledges – reflect the international community’s “kick-the-can-down-the-road’ approach to biodiversity.

This insufficiently-ambitious agreement comes amid a broader backdrop of global challenges: trade disputes, shrinking foreign aid and rising political tensions. The absence of the U.S. at the summit – having refused to sign the UN Convention on Biological Diversity – further undermines hopes for meaningful action. The burden of biodiversity preservation thus continues to fall on the shoulders of the private sector, which must now fill the leadership void left by political inertia. As global leaders in their respective sectors, TotalEnergies, CMOC and CMA CGM are setting the stage for a new era of corporate responsibility in biodiversity conservation.

Private firms rising to the occasion

TotalEnergies, with its commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, integrates biodiversity into every stage of its operations. Notably, during the construction of the Shetland Islands gas plant in Scotland, the company invested $100 million to excavate and preserve peatlands – critical ecosystems for carbon sequestration and wildlife, ensuring these wetlands are restored to their original state over time.

Building on this momentum, TotalEnergies is also advancing its Tilenga project in Uganda, where the company’s efforts aim for a net gain in biodiversity. The project will protect 10,000 hectares of forest from deforestation and restore 1,000 hectares of tropical woodland. Additionally, TotalEnergies is focused on boosting populations of endangered species, including lions and elephants, in the Murchison Falls National Park. Equally crucial are the actions Total has pledged to avoid, with the company emerging as a pioneer in voluntary conservation, excluding operations in sensitive areas such as UNESCO World Heritage sites and the Arctic.

Chinese mining group CMOC shares this commitment to overhauling the practices of its sector. Guided by its Biodiversity Vision, CMOC Brasil has implemented significant conservation actions, such as a reforestation program in the country, where it has planted over 89,000 saplings and reforested 1,448 hectares. What’s more, CMOC’s environmental control plan includes 34 biodiversity monitoring sites, ensuring ongoing efforts to protect animal and plant populations in Brazil’s Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes.

At CMOC’s TFM copper-cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, meanwhile, the company is focused on conserving local plants adapted to the challenging conditions of the area. Through its partnership with the University of Lubumbashi, CMOC has advanced scientific understanding of heavy-metal-tolerant plants and is helping to restore copper-rich soil areas. In 2022, CMOC cultivated over 2,500 plants, with some used for revegetation programs and others donated to local communities. As a result of these efforts, CMOC has protected roughly 40 copper flora species around its TFM site over the last 15 years.

Meanwhile, CMA CGM, a French leader in maritime shipping, is protecting marine biodiversity through its innovative “zero loss” policy, prioritising container security and fleet management to prevent environmental harm. Since 2020, the company has launched its Reef Recovery program, aimed at restoring coral reefs – critical ecosystems that support a quarter of marine biodiversity. Working closely with WWF, CMA CGM is supporting conservation efforts in France, South Africa and the Philippines, underscoring its commitment to healthy oceans and the vital biodiversity they sustain.

The bottom line

Moving forward, governments have a critical role to play in facilitating and expanding the private sector’s contribution to biodiversity, even if they fail to deliver meaningful political cooperation. At a minimum, the public sector must remove barriers that stifle corporate investment in sustainability, offering a clear, consistent regulatory framework that incentivises long-term environmental responsibility. From creating tax breaks for companies that invest in nature restoration to establishing carbon markets and setting mandatory reporting standards for biodiversity-related risks, government measures can empower businesses to act, ensuring they can make meaningful strides in preserving ecosystems.

Given the fragile COP16 deal offering little progress from the breakdown of November’s talks last November, the private sector must fill the gap left by governments’ ongoing inaction. With their resources, technological capabilities and influence, leading companies in industries such as mining and energy are in a unique position to lead meaningful change – now is the time for others to follow suit to drive nature restoration efforts and set the standard for global biodiversity leadership.

The post COP16 exposes failing political will, private sector’s key role in global biodiversity action appeared first on Green Prophet.

The recent nomination of Jessika Roswall as the European Union’s Environment Commissioner has stirred a wave of skepticism across Brussels. Coming from Sweden’s conservative Moderate Party, Roswall represents a government criticized for its lackluster commitment to EU environmental goals. Her appointment has raised concerns about the future direction of the European Green Deal, particularly as she takes on a portfolio fraught with contentious issues such as deforestation and biodiversity. 

With the EU struggling to meet its own climate and environmental targets, Roswall’s leadership will be under intense scrutiny, especially as debates over environmental regulations heat up. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s recent comments about possibly delaying the enforcement of the EU’s anti-deforestation regulation underscore the precarious balance the new commissioner will have to maintain. The regulation, aimed at preventing the import of products linked to deforestation, such as cocoa and coffee, has been mired in controversy. Industry groups and NGOs alike have expressed concerns about the feasibility of compliance under the current timeline. 

Roswall’s task will not be easy. Sweden’s own environmental record has been less than stellar recently, with the country pushing back against several EU environmental initiatives, including the Nature Restoration Law and anti-deforestation rules. Critics have warned that her nomination could signal a weakening of the EU’s resolve on critical environmental issues. As MEPs prepare for her parliamentary hearing, many are eager to see if she can rise above her government’s track record and advocate for stronger, more effective environmental policies at the European level. However, given how critical these environmental policies are, it’s particularly concerning that EU policymakers are often distracted by less impactful debates. 

Distracting Debates

One such issue is the ongoing controversy over the harmonization of front-of-pack food labeling. One of the systems being considered for implementation is Nutri-Score. The FOP label was introduced in 2017 and was developed to help consumers make healthier food choices. Since then, it has only courted criticism. Nutri-Score was designed to simplify nutritional information through a color-coded scale ranging from green ‘A’ to red ‘E’, but its execution has been far from straightforward. The system oversimplifies complex nutritional data, creating confusion among consumers. Foods that are nutrient-dense but traditionally high in fat or salt, such as olive oil, cheese, and cured meats, often receive lower scores, despite being integral parts of balanced diets in many European cultures. This has led to well founded accusations that Nutri-Score unfairly discriminates against heritage foods. Moreover, the frequent changes to the Nutri-Score algorithm have only added to the confusion. 

For instance, Bel Group announced that the company would not be applying the Nutri-Score label on its cheese products in countries where the system is in place. Bel Group, which produces popular cheese brands like Babybel and The Laughing Cow, expressed concerns that Nutri-Score does not currently account for the specific nutritional benefits of cheese, particularly in relation to recommended portion sizes and its role in a balanced diet. They argue that Nutri-Score fails to provide consumers with accurate information about cheese products. In the meantime, Bel Group continues to provide detailed nutritional information and balanced meal suggestions on packaging and via their websites, ensuring consumers still have access to the information needed for healthier choices.

While the debate over Nutri-Score has captured significant political and media attention, it seems to be a distraction from the more pressing environmental challenges facing Europe. With the EU struggling to meet its climate goals and facing significant pushback on essential regulations like the anti-deforestation law, it is crucial that policymakers focus on the bigger picture. 

Managing complexity 

Roswall’s tenure as environment commissioner will likely be defined by her ability to navigate these complex, high-stakes issues. Von der Leyen’s suggestion to delay the anti-deforestation regulation’s enforcement is emblematic of the balancing act that Roswall will have to perform. The regulation, which officially came into force in June 2023, is currently in a transition phase, with full compliance expected by December 2024. However, the enforcement deadlock, coupled with industry pressure, has led to calls for a postponement. Proponents of the delay argue that companies need more time to adapt to the stringent requirements, which include providing geolocation data to prove that their products are not sourced from deforested land. 

The implications of such a delay are significant. MEPs like Pascal Canfin have warned that postponing the regulation could set a dangerous precedent, undermining the EU’s credibility on environmental commitments and potentially stalling other crucial aspects of the Green Deal. Canfin and others argue that backtracking now would send the wrong signal, both to the international community and to European citizens who have placed their hopes in the EU’s ability to lead on environmental issues. A postponement could also embolden those within the EU who are resistant to ambitious climate policies, making it even harder to pass future legislation aimed at tackling deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change.

Roswall’s leadership will also be critical as the EU faces increasing scrutiny over its ability to meet its own climate and environmental targets. The bloc has set ambitious goals, such as achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and protecting 30% of its land and sea areas by 2030. Yet, progress has been slow, and there are growing concerns that the EU is not on track to meet these commitments. The upcoming parliamentary hearings will be an opportunity for Roswall to articulate her vision and commitment to these targets. 

While the debate over Nutri-Score may seem peripheral in comparison to these larger issues, it is indicative of the broader challenges facing EU policymakers. The controversy surrounding the labeling system reflects a deeper struggle over how best to reconcile public health, cultural heritage, and economic interests. 

Roswall’s challenge will be to ensure that the EU’s focus remains on the critical environmental challenges at hand. The EU’s ability to lead on global environmental issues depends on its willingness to make difficult decisions and to stay the course in the face of political and economic pressures.

The new commissioner will need to navigate a complex web of stakeholders, from industry groups and NGOs to national governments and European institutions. Each will have their own interests and agendas, and finding common ground will be no small feat. Yet, the urgency of the environmental crisis demands bold action and decisive leadership.

The post Europe’s Environmental Crossroads: New Commissioner Faces Challenges  appeared first on Green Prophet.

As the European Commission prepares for a new term beginning in November, a seismic shift in the distribution of power among its directorates-general looms large. The draft proposal seen by Euronews reveals that the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) stands to lose significant authority over food safety, transferring crucial responsibilities to other departments. This reorganization is set to reshape the landscape of food policy in the EU, with potentially many positive outcomes given the diffused responsibilities in the sector and its societal importance. 

Under the proposed changes, DG SANTE would cede control over pesticide approval, animal welfare, plant health, plant varieties, and new genomic techniques to the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). Furthermore, other food safety concerns would shift to the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST), effectively decentralizing DG SANTE’s extensive influence over food-related issues.

Shifting battlegrounds 

Currently, DG AGRI oversees the EU’s substantial farm subsidies program, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which constitutes a third of the EU budget. Enhancing DG AGRI’s mandate could transform it into a comprehensive food department, managing the entire food system rather than merely agricultural production. This expansion would allow DG AGRI to address food security, agricultural trade, food waste, and other agri-food industry policies more cohesively. 

The proposed shift in responsibilities is not merely administrative but could reignite contentious debates, particularly around the Front-of-Pack (FOP) label requirement laid out under the Farm to Fork strategy. This debate, highly contentious and political, has been dominated by those in support of Nutri-Score, a colour-coded label created by France, and those who oppose it. With an empowered DG AGRI, the creation of a senior official dedicated to the food system becomes a distinct possibility. Such a position could be particularly appealing to Italy, which, like other Member States, must appoint a Commissioner for the upcoming five-year term. Italy, among other countries of South Europe, notably Portugal but also Romania and Bulgaria, has vocally opposed the Nutri-score label, arguing that it unfairly discriminates against the Mediterranean diet and traditional foods. 

Nutri-Score malaise

Nutri-score has faced persistent criticism since its introduction, one of the primary ones being that it grossly oversimplifies nutritional information and thereby potentially misleading consumers. By grading foods from A to E based on their nutritional profile, the system fails to account for the complexities of diet and nutrition. Critics argue that it penalizes traditional and artisanal foods, which might have higher fat or sugar content but are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. 

Additionally, there are concerns about the bias inherent in the Nutri-score system. Southern European countries, in particular, contend that the label is skewed against their culinary traditions. Foods like olive oil and certain cheeses, staples of the Mediterranean diet known for their health benefits, receive lower scores despite their nutritional value when consumed as part of a holistic diet. This has led to accusations that Nutri-score tends to favour industrial, processed foods that can be reformulated to achieve better scores, rather than whole, natural products.

Although Nutri-score will remain under DG SANTE’s jurisdiction for the moment, this could change if DG AGRI were to evolves into a comprehensive, centralised food authority. In that case, the FOP debate could shift to a department prepared to overthrow the entire FOP label debate to start from fresh and thus sparking fresh controversies.

The reshuffle as a great opportunity

Despite the turbulence, this restructuring presents several opportunities that could greatly improve the division of power, functioning and effectiveness of the European Commission. For DG SANTE, the streamlined portfolio allows a sharper focus on core public health issues, enabling it to play a significant role in global health initiatives such as the World Health Organisation’s pandemic accord and the rollout of new health data legislation. A more concentrated mandate could ensure that DG SANTE addresses public health concerns with greater efficiency and precision, potentially leading to more informed decisions in areas including the FOP label and much beyond. 

Regarding DG AGRI, the consolidation of agriculture and food system responsibilities under one roof promises enhanced decision-making efficiency and effectiveness. The agri-food sector, currently embroiled in protests over low food prices, environmental regulations, and non-EU agricultural trade, could benefit from a more holistic approach. Farmers across Europe have voiced concerns about the bureaucratic complexities of the CAP, which has recently leaned towards greener policies. 

Case in point are the farmer protests ongoing since late 2023 sparked by frustration by the pressures on their livelihoods. A restructured DG AGRI, equipped with broader powers, could address these grievances more effectively. The potential to streamline policies and reduce bureaucratic hurdles could alleviate some of the sector’s burdens, fostering a more sustainable and economically viable agricultural landscape. Indeed, a more unified DG AGRI might strike a better balance between farmer needs, consumer demands, and sustainability as the new European Commission begins its new mandate later this year.

As the European Commission moves towards this significant reshuffle, the implications for food safety, agricultural policy, and public health are profound. Whether these changes will lead to improved efficiency and effectiveness or spark new conflicts remains to be seen. However, the stakes are undeniably high, and the outcomes will shape the future of Europe’s food system for years to come.

The post A reduced DG SANTE is a good thing – here’s why appeared first on Green Prophet.

With policymakers in Brussels steadily eroding the EU Green Deal ahead of next month’s European elections, governments, NGOs and scientists have joined forces to counter this short-sighted political point-scoring. On 14 May, environment ministers from 11 member states issued a joint letter calling for the reversal of obstructionist countries’ sudden opposition to the Natural Restoration Law’s final green light.

This initiative notably arrived a day after 140 environmental NGOs published an open letter lambasting the EU’s green backtracking, particularly fueled by the likes of Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

Lamenting how Europe’s “basic environmental standards” are being scrapped “to appease industry lobbyists,” the letter’s signatories highlight the host of other diluted, blocked or outright abandoned Green Deal files “despite the growing evidence of looming ecological collapse.”

With calls for a European “right to a healthy environment” re-emerging in May, achieving this noble ambition will require a broad coalition of incoming MEPs to crack down on ecologically-destructive industries’ excessive lobbying influence while fending off a potential far-right, anti-green lurch.

Big Tobacco ‘poisoning the planet’

In this climate, the tobacco industry remains one of Europe’s worst offenders. Take the conflict of interest scandal involving Jan Hoffman, a former DG SANTE official who had worked on issues of tobacco traceability right before jumping to Dentsu Tracking, the tobacco industry-linked firm controversially awarded the contract to run the EU’s tobacco track and trace system.

Big Tobacco continues to aggressively lobby EU policymakers to delay effective, citizen-first policies, such as the recommendation on smoke-free environments to tighten rules on tobacco usage in public places as well as the long-awaited revisions of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Taxation Directive (TTD). BAT has notably made clear its intention to interfere with the latter, blatantly disregarding the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)’s Article 5.3 lobbying rules as well as its ITP Protocol’s Article 8 stipulations on industry-independent track and trace.

This lobbying-induced regulatory vacuum enables the industry to continue freely polluting and maximising profits at the expense of Europe’s social and environmental well-being – a reality highlighted by the European Parliament’s Working Group on Tobacco in its new White Paper. The fruit of a multi-sector collaboration including MEP Pierre Larrouturou, NGO coalition the SmokeFree Partnership and WHO FCTC Program Director Kelvin Khow, the White Paper cites a landmark WHO report revealing how the tobacco industry is “poisoning our planet.”

Beyond causing over 8 million preventable deaths annually, Khow’s contribution spotlights how Big Tobacco also destroys 600 million trees, razes 200,000 hectares of land and guzzles over 20 billion tonnes of water. Tobacco production accounts for 5% of global deforestation and over 80 million tonnes of annual CO2 while cigarettes remain “the most littered item on the planet,” with roughly 4.5 trillion highly-toxic filters polluting the world’s oceans, beaches, parks and soils every year.

Moving forward, the MEP-led White Paper rightly advocates for the TTD-TPD revision process to address this scourge. According to its authors, WHO FCTC-aligned measures such as banning cigarette filters, imposing “polluter pays” clean-up obligations and prohibiting tobacco companies from promoting greenwashed ‘ESG’ credentials will be crucial in tackling Big Tobacco’s environmental carnage while countering its lobbying influence.

‘Big Toxics’ dissolving Green Deal

A leading White Paper contributor, the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has rightly questioned why the “public interest firewall…on public health matters,” applied to the tobacco lobby – in theory if not in practice – has not been extended to Europe’s chemicals industry. Dubbed the ‘Big Toxics,’ the industry’s four largest chemicals companies and three EU trade associations are amongst the biggest spenders in Brussels, outspending even Big Tech according to the CEO’s LobbyFacts initiative.

This excessive influence has delayed the REACH regulation reform aimed at enhancing public health and environmental protection against toxic chemicals. Aggressively opposing REACH from its inception using dubious research, countless loophole requests among a wider arsenal of influence, the Big Toxics continue to use fearmongering narratives to impede its much-needed revision.

While the Commission resisted the industry’s initial assault on the Green Deal’s chemicals pillar, the chemicals lobby has capitalised on mounting political aversion towards green regulations. With key Green Deal files falling off the agenda, Big Toxics are now targeting the EU proposal to ban polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – so-called ‘forever chemicals. 

According to the CEO, PFAS’s devasting impact in Europe includes an estimated €52-84 billion in annual health costs – likely contributing to cancer and fertility issues – and €10-20 billion in environmental restoration costs in addition to the “unquantifiable damage and suffering” these toxic chemicals generate. With the Big Toxics lobby shielding its companies from responsibility for this ecological and social plague, EU policymakers must take a strong stand.

Carmakers driving green goals into wall

As with the Big Toxics, Europe’s automotive industry has seized on the changing political winds to dilute the Green Deal’s ambition. Led by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), the industry’s lobbying machine went into overdrive ahead of the vote on the Euro 7 regulation setting limits on highly-polluting car emissions like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). According to environmental NGOs, these efforts helped to secure a regulatory freeze for exhaust pollution, with Transport & Environment’s Lucien Mathieu claiming that the car lobby’s victory proves that it is ”back in control.”

Ahead of the watered-down Euro 7 deal finalised by MEPs and member-state delegates last December, experts from the Consortium for Ultra-low Vehicle Emissions (CLOVE) warned that its lack of progress on emissions rules could generate €100 billion in health and environmental costs by 2050 due to excessive nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution from combustion engines. Responsible for 49,000 premature EU deaths every year, NO2 also indirectly fuels the formation of Particulate Matter (PM), which causes a further 240,000 excess annual deaths.

As environmental consultancy CE Delft has highlighted, these premature deaths could be slashed in half if cars’ road emissions matched the misleading levels reported in laboratory testing. The automotive industry continues to exploit this regulatory loophole on lab versus real-world emissions testing, with lobbyists using a series of undeclared Commission meetings to maintain a status quo subjecting European citizens to lethal, avoidable emissions.

Defending environmental rights

Building on MEPs’ recent ban of Amazon lobbyists over their unwillingness to transparently engage with policymakers concerning labour rights and well-being issues, the next Parliament should consider red-carding the bloc’s most toxic and high-spending industry lobbies. Doing so would send a powerful message that Europe places its citizens above corporate interests while helping create the conditions for a long-overdue right to a healthy environment in Europe.

With a new crop of young, ambitious environmental activists set be elected to the Parliament and civil society calls mounting for the Council of Europe to enshrine environmental health into the continent’s human rights system, a window of opportunity is opening for European institutions to take decisive action. Working in close collaboration with NGOs and researchers, MEPs must launch a sweeping counteroffensive against the Green Deal’s betrayal and the noxious lobbying influence at its core.

The post Next EU Parliament must crack down on lobbying from ecologically-toxic industries appeared first on Green Prophet.

The European Union (EU) has long been a global leader in environmental protection, and its latest move – the EU Deforestation Regulation – is a testament to its commitment to safeguarding our planet’s future. This regulation is a significant step forward in the fight against deforestation, with far-reaching implications for businesses, the environment, and the global community. The EUDR is a comprehensive legislative measure aimed at curbing the availability and export of commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation within the EU market. These include cattle, soy, palm oil, coffee, timber (wood), rubber, and cocoa. The law was enacted by the European Parliament and the Council on 31 May 2023, and has entered into force as of June 29, 2023.

The regulation acknowledges the environmental, economic, and social benefits of forests, recognizing their role in maintaining ecosystem functions, protecting the climate system, and providing livelihoods for approximately one-third of the world’s population. It also highlights the severe consequences of deforestation and forest degradation, including the reduction of essential carbon sinks and the increased risk of new diseases and pandemics.

An infographic by satellite data analytics company LiveEO, which offers deforestation detection, breaks down the complex legislation.

Why is the bill important?

Deforestation and forest degradation are occurring at an alarming rate, contributing significantly to global warming and biodiversity loss. The EU’s consumption is a significant driver of these environmental issues on a global scale. The regulation aims to combat this by reducing the impact of the Union’s consumption on deforestation, promoting sustainable trade, implementing ambitious environment and climate policies, and working in partnership with producer countries.

The regulation is a crucial part of the measures needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and comply with the Union’s commitments under the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement. It also seeks to combat biodiversity loss and comply with the Union’s commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Who Needs to Comply – and How?

The regulation applies to companies operating within the EU that deal with commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation (see infographic), which need to ensure that their supply chains are deforestation-free. This involves conducting due diligence to identify and address deforestation risks in their supply chains, sourcing commodities and products from sustainable and certified sources, and implementing traceability systems to track the origin of commodities and products.

Businesses are also required to adopt sustainable practices in their operations. This could include implementing sustainable agricultural practices, reducing waste, and minimizing their carbon footprint. They will need to report on their efforts to combat deforestation, as well as disclose information about their supply chains. Publishing annual sustainability reports, participating in third-party audits, and disclosing information to regulatory authorities will be part of this effort.

In addition, companies are encouraged to work in partnership with other stakeholders, including local communities, non-governmental organizations, and governments, to address deforestation. This could involve participating in multi-stakeholder initiatives, supporting local conservation efforts, and contributing to sustainable development projects.

The EU Deforestation Regulation is a significant step towards a more sustainable future. It not only addresses a critical environmental issue but also sets a precedent for other regions to follow. As companies adapt to comply with this regulation, they will play a crucial role in protecting our planet’s forests and, ultimately, our future.

The post The EU’s new Deforestation Regulation is a Game-Changer appeared first on Green Prophet.

“Going green” is a new defense tactic modern military: From the use of solar energy to power field re-chargers for communication equipment to finding new ways to supply troops with drinking water by moisture condensation from vehicle AC units. Armies going green is a new tactical offensive in warfare, especially when it means saving fuel and resulting in less need for fuel supply lines. Cyprus, a small EU island off the coast of Greece and Turkey is the latest army to join the trend. Their reasoning: It’s good for the young troops.

The Greek Cypriot National Guard is adopting eco-management policies set forth by the EU Commission’s European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), according to the Cyprus Mail. They are the first EU army to do so.

Cypriot Defense Minister Demetris Eliadis says: “In an organized society with young people, applying environmental management schemes is an achievable target with real benefits to the environment and is especially important for the environmental consciousness of our recruits.”

The new eco camp, the Lieutenant General Stylianos Kalmbourdjis army camp, located in Delikipos near Larnaca, is incorporating a system of ecology managrment that includes energy and material efficiency, water consumption, waste management, biodiversity and  control of greenhouse gas emissions.

Environment policies  include training troops in ecology management policies and afterwards carrying out periodic audits to correct mistakes made in implementing these policies.

This military camp will be listed on the EMAS environmental database and will be be used as an example for other such bases. Some of the most noted green policies being followed are the use of photovoltaic or solar cells for creating electricity and the recycling of wastes, including the use of recycled water.

Recycling of water by military camps is also for the non-military as well. In an example in Israel’s Negev desert region, recycled waste water is being diverted to provide water for a small lake in a nature park.

::Cyprus Mail

More articles on militaries going green:
Army Sewage Irrigates Nature Park in Israel
Going Green is a Tactical Offensive in War
The IDF Adopts Solar Energy Field Rechargers in Army Practices

Image of grass army boots from Shutterstock

The post The Eco Army of Cyprus appeared first on Green Prophet.