The EU has decided to delay its methane regulation, and the reason is simple enough.
Europe imports almost 90 percent of its gas, which makes it one of the most exposed buyers in the world. And the US-Israeli war with Iran has choked gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
Making matters more complicated is the fact that Europe is still phasing out Russian gas, with a total ban on Russian overseas liquified gas due to be implemented next year.
So few were surprised when energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen told ministers in Dublin this week that he will propose delaying the import part of the regulation by a year to 2028, although member states and parliament still have to formally agree.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
The construction of an oil refinery in the Kenyan city of Lamu is a strategic project that will enable East African countries to increase the added value of their natural resources, achieve energy self-sufficiency, and strengthen the region’s economic and political independence. The proposed East African refinery in Lamu will refine crude from Turkana, estimated […]
Beijing has opened an anti-dumping investigation into a chemical imported from the European Union days before EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič travels to China for talks covering trade imbalances, market access and strategic raw materials.
China has opened a new anti-dumping investigation into imports from the European Union less than a week before EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is due in Beijing for talks on the increasingly difficult trade relationship between the two sides.
China’s Ministry of Commerce announced on Saturday, 3 October, that it was beginning an investigation into p-nitrotoluene, also known as 4-nitrotoluene, imported from the EU.
According to the official notice opening the investigation, the case follows an application submitted on 14 September by Chinese producers Jiangsu Huaihe Chemical and Hubei Dongfang Chemical. The investigation will examine alleged dumping between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026, while the assessment of possible damage to Chinese industry will cover January 2022 to June 2026.
P-nitrotoluene is used in the production of dyes, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, pigments and other chemical products.
In isolation, the investigation concerns a relatively specialised industrial product. Its timing, however, places it inside a much wider argument over the future of EU-China trade.
Šefčovič is expected in China on 8 and 9 October for the second high-level meeting under the EU-China trade and investment consultation mechanism established earlier this year.
The deadline followed talks between Šefčovič and Wang in Brussels in June. At the time, the two sides agreed to establish working groups dealing with trade and investment balances, export controls, intellectual property and World Trade Organisation reform.
The numbers remain a central part of the European argument.
According to Eurostat’s figures for EU-China trade in 2025, the EU imported €559.4 billion in goods from China while exporting €199.6 billion, leaving a trade deficit of €359.8 billion. EU exports to China fell by 6.5 per cent compared with 2024, while imports increased by 6.4 per cent.
Brussels argues that the imbalance cannot be viewed separately from questions of industrial subsidies, excess manufacturing capacity and barriers encountered by European companies seeking access to the Chinese market.
Beijing rejects the suggestion that the growth of Chinese exports is principally the result of unfair state support and has criticised the EU’s expanding use of trade-defence instruments.
The confrontation now covers a growing range of industries.
The EU has imposed additional duties on Chinese electric vehicles following an anti-subsidy investigation, while disputes have extended to medical devices, public procurement and agricultural products. China, meanwhile, has launched investigations affecting European products including brandy, pork, dairy goods and chemicals.
Rare earths have become particularly important.
European industry remains heavily dependent on Chinese supplies and processing capacity for materials used in permanent magnets, electric vehicles, wind turbines, electronics and defence equipment.
Neither Brussels nor Beijing has indicated that the broader commercial relationship is heading towards disengagement. China remains the EU’s largest source of imported goods and the European market remains commercially important to Chinese exporters.
But both sides are increasingly prepared to use trade-defence measures when negotiations fail to resolve disputes.
Saturday’s anti-dumping investigation consequently adds another issue to Šefčovič’s agenda days before he arrives in Beijing — and provides an early indication of the atmosphere surrounding the October talks.
The actual handover of the BRICS chairmanship from New Delhi to Beijing will take place in three months, but the contours of the group’s near-term agenda can already be identified with reasonable clarity. As BRICS expands and diversifies, the focus of discussions is shifting from symbolic gestures to issues of practical economic integration. Experts identify […]
🇺🇸 Meanwhile in Los Angeles “Tens of thousands of homeless people all on the streets – it’s way worse than I thought” All by design. pic.twitter.com/18QZAWqh16 — Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) October 2, 2026
The Black Sea is a strategic region of key importance for food security, the blue economy, maritime transport, tourism, fisheries, and aquaculture. This was stated by the Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Prof. Dr. Ivan Paligorov, at the opening of the Stakeholder Conference on the Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea 2026 […]
Iranian Airlines Face Chronic Difficulties: On September 30, bailiffs boarded a Caspian Airlines Boeing 737—while passengers sat ready for takeoff—and served an order to collect a debt of 3 million euros before the aircraft could depart. The detention occurred just days after US secondary sanctions against the Iranian aviation sector came into effect, halving international […]
Ex CIA officer testified in a Tribunal on “Exploitation of children by satanic elites as Clinton one”
Former CIA officer and founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Command, Robert David Steele (died in 2021) , testified before the International Tribunal for Natural Justice on the systemic exploitation of children by powerful satanic elites.
He exposed that children are not only kidnapped but in some cases bred by families in the United States as a cash crop, sold without birth certificates, making it easier to kill them with no trace. He stated children are imported by the plane load, also without documentation.
Steele described this as extending beyond slavery and sex abuse to child torture for adrenalized blood in satanic blood-drinking ceremonies, harvesting of body organs, and ritual murder!
«After Robert helped us all expose The Clinton Foundation and CIA child trafficking networks, he mysteriously “died of Covid-19” in 2021» Russian outlet News-Pravda added in its post.
“The reason we have 1,000 military bases is not for military power. They’re lily pads for smuggling. That’s how CIA smuggles gold, guns, drugs, cash, and small children for the elites in the United States!”
‘Donald Trump could use a nuclear weapon against Iran as a GRAND FINALE to declare victory and go home.’
Matthew Hoh, former Department of Defense & State Department Official who resigned over the Afghanistan war.
‘The danger of the use of a nuclear weapon in this war has always been here. I’ve been afraid that the United States would use a nuclear weapon possibly back in April, against say maybe one of the facilities like Isfahan”.
“The idea presented to President Trump: ‘Mr. President, these are low-yield nuclear weapons. They are a fraction of the size of the Hiroshima bomb. There’s hardly any fallout. You can barely even call these a nuclear weapon”.
“And what we can do is we can drop it on Isfahan. That will seal off that facility, and the Iranians will never be able to get to that enriched uranium. And this way, you can declare victory and go home.’
“You could see that same argument can still apply this time, maybe with Pickaxe Mountain or something like that.The idea that it provides for a grand finale for the president of the United States to declare victory and go home”
WATCH FULL INTERVIEW BELOW
CNN – FIRST-EVER radio signal from a planet outside our solar system DETECTED
FIRST-EVER radio signal from a planet outside our solar system DETECTED ‘The signal is evidence of a colossal magnetic field, not intelligent life’— CNN
The planet is 63 LIGHT-YEARS away & the signal is 200 times stronger than Jupiter’s — but scientists don’t know WHY it’s so powerful?
A well-informed source familiar with the matter has revealed new details about the incident related to an Emirati aircraft, saying Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to win the upcoming election is to drag US President Donald Trump into a new quagmire against Iran.
Iranian Press TV and Anadolu Turkish Agency so confirmed the suggestion highlighted by Gospa News on previous updates below in September, 30.
Speaking to Press TV, the regional source said the “absurd scenario” involving the hijacking of an Emirati aircraft bound for the occupied territories from the UAE, followed by its landing in Saudi Arabia, was carried out on Wednesday, three days after Netanyahu travelled to the United Arab Emirates accompanied by several senior military and intelligence officials.
The project, the informed source said, was discussed and finalized during the visit.
Baghdad erupted in celebration as the US-led international coalition formally ended its military mission in Iraq after 12 years.
Crowds gathered in the Iraqi capital, with participants calling the withdrawal a “great victory” and a step toward Iraqi sovereignty. The coalition’s exit follows a phased agreement between Baghdad and Washington reached in 2024.
The EU and its G7 partners agreed on Friday (2 October) to a coordinated release of 100 million barrels of diesel and crude through the International Energy Agency (IEA) over four months.
The release includes “a frontloaded substantial diesel release within the first 20 days,” a press brief released after a Friday afternoon call read.
The call was initiated by French president Emmanuel Macron who holds the rotating G7 presidency on Friday, after he spoke to US president Donald Trump on Thursday.
“Europe has just agreed to release a massive amount of their heavily stocked Diesel Oil. The process will begin immediately,” Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly afterwards.
Trump had pressured EU leaders to agree to the release all week.
On Thursday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent urged Europe to “immediately” tap its reserves.
And EU leaders had received a proposal from the White Housethe same day for 120 million barrels of diesel over 180 days.
Washington had already approached France, Germany, Italy, Ireland and the UK individually, warning they could face US diesel export bans if they did not comply.
US diesel prices hit a record $6.53 per gallon last week, which is a liability for Trump’s Republicans ahead of the 3 November midterm elections.
Europe’s reward is a single line in the G7 statement, which reaffirms a commitment “to refrain from export restrictions on energy and energy products” between G7 countries.
The EU also on Friday had insisted that any further release come with a US pledge to avoid a unilateral diesel ban, and rejected the suggestion that they buckled to US pressure.
“We fully reject a [US] ban on diesel. A ban would not be beneficial to anyone. It would undermine our trust in the US as a reliable partner,” said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the commission’s energy spokesperson.
She declined to comment on the leader’s call ahead of time.
Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pinho said the coordination had “nothing to do with” recent threats.
She noted that gas prices had risen by 140 percent and diesel prices had doubled since February, and that a release agreed in March was still being implemented.
The G7 text presented Friday’s decision to release the 100 million barrels as continuing those commitments.
But the commission’s own oil coordination group concluded this week that there was “no immediate security supply issue” in the EU, Itkonen said.
Emergency stocks exist to deal with supply disruptions, not prices.
But the IEA route gives European capitals political cover, allowing them to present the release as collective action rather than a concession to Washington.
And it may not be the last one. “We will convene in the context of the IEA in the coming days to discuss the possibility of additional diesel releases as necessary,” the G7 statement said.
Inflation in Greece surged to 5.1% in September, while the Eurozone average stood at 3.8%, the European Statistics authority EUROSTAT announced on Friday, October 2, 2026, based on preliminary data.. The Energy index rose by 14.1% Annual inflation in the Eurozone came in at 3.8% in September, up from 3.2% in August, while in Greece […]
TOKYO – China gave global investors one of 2026’s biggest AI thrills. Yet the country that helped ignite excitement about artificial intelligence is home to one of the worst-performing major stock markets. While AI fever has propelled Seoul, Taipei and Tokyo higher, Chinese shares are stuck in reverse.
So what gives? Several forces, actually. Weak household demand, for one. Consumer spending continues to disappoint, weighing on the earnings potential of mainland internet companies, automakers, and retailers.
As global oil supplies continue to tighten up amid ongoing geopolitical conflicts that have pushed up fuel prices, the governor of Texas has declared a state of emergency.
As global oil supplies continue to tighten up amid ongoing geopolitical conflicts that have pushed up fuel prices, the governor of Texas has declared a state of emergency.
All links to previous Gospa News posts have been added in the aftermath by virtue of the ties with topics covered
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a sweeping lawsuit against Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla, accusing them of deceiving the public about the safety and transmission-prevention capabilities of Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA injection.
The 49-page complaint was filed on October 1, 2026, in St. Lucie County, Florida, and targets Pfizer and Bourla personally under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
At the center of the case is an explosive allegation: Pfizer publicly assured Americans that its COVID shot was safe while the company possessed internal and external safety information involving myocarditis, miscarriages, strokes, adverse events, and deaths.
158,893 adverse events in just 10 weeks
According to the complaint, Pfizer’s own adverse-event database contained 158,893 adverse events from 42,086 case reports by February 28, 2021—only about 10 weeks after the vaccine received emergency authorization.
The cover of the complaint (link in the sources)
Yet in January 2023, Bourla publicly stated that Pfizer had seen “not a single [safety] signal” despite billions of doses having been administered.
Florida argues that statement was fundamentally incompatible with information already known about myocarditis and pericarditis.
Florida argues that the existence of this volume of serious adverse-event information undermined Pfizer’s sweeping public safety messaging.
The volume of reports became so large, according to the filing, that Pfizer hired 600 additional full-time employees and expected to hire another 1,800 workers to process adverse-event reports.
Pregnancy and miscarriages
Another major section of the lawsuit concerns pregnancy.
The complaint states that by February 28, 2021, Pfizer had reports involving 458 pregnant women exposed to its COVID vaccine. Of those reports, 248 involved an adverse event and 52 involved miscarriage, according to the filing. Nearly all of the reported miscarriages occurred during the first trimester.
The lawsuit also points to Pfizer’s planned clinical trial involving pregnant women.
Pfizer initially sought approximately 4,000 participants, but the complaint states that only 348 mothers and 335 infants were ultimately enrolled and that the study was terminated early. The women vaccinated in that study were 24–34 weeks pregnant, meaning the trial did not directly provide first-trimester vaccination data.
The complaint further cites the Comirnaty package insert as stating that there are no available data on use before 24 weeks sufficient to inform risks for major birth defects and miscarriage.
Pfizer pushed transmission claims without testing transmission
The second enormous pillar of Florida’s case concerns transmission. Pfizer and Bourla repeatedly told the public that vaccination would protect other people.
In December 2021, for example, Pfizer said that getting as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible remained the best course of action to “prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
The FDA itself stated in December 2020 that there was no evidence at that time that the vaccine prevented SARS-CoV-2 transmission from one person to another, and transmission was not an objective of Pfizer’s trial protocol.
A Pfizer executive later publicly acknowledged that the vaccine had not been tested for stopping transmission before entering the market.
Florida alleges that Pfizer nevertheless used the idea of protecting loved ones as a powerful marketing tool to increase vaccine uptake.
More than $80 BILLION in COVID vaccine revenue
The financial stakes were enormous. The complaint states that Pfizer turned approximately $1.5 billion in research and development spending into more than $80 billion in COVID vaccine revenue.
Pfizer’s vaccine captured nearly 70% of the U.S. and European COVID vaccine markets, according to figures cited in the complaint.
Meanwhile, Bourla received approximately $101.8 million in compensation from Pfizer between 2020 and 2023.
Florida’s complaint goes beyond safety claims and accuses Pfizer of engaging in broader unfair business practices to dominate the COVID vaccine market.
Florida wants the money back
Florida is seeking far more than a symbolic judgment. The Attorney General is asking the court for civil penalties, a permanent injunction against deceptive or unfair representations concerning Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, attorneys’ fees and other relief.
Most significantly, Florida is also seeking disgorgement—legal language meaning Pfizer could be forced to hand back profits connected to conduct the court ultimately determines violated Florida law.
The U.S. is reportedly threatening to ban exports of diesel fuel to parts of Europe, unless countries like Germany and France release more of their diesel reserves.
The U.S. is reportedly threatening to ban exports of diesel fuel to parts of Europe, unless countries like Germany and France release more of their diesel reserves.
From the heinous crimes of the Epstein class to the Cornell 7, from the toxic cultures of the “manosphere” to the increase of antisocial relationships with online pornography and AI bots, we need to talk about what is going on with men in our society. We speak with renowned scholar, author, and commentator Dr. Mark Anthony Neal about his new book Save a Seat for Me: Notes on American Fatherhood, and about the ways American capitalism damages everyone and trains boys to become monstrous men.
Credits:
Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Maximillian Alvarez:
I’m here at Red Emmas at the Baltimore Book Festival, and I’m sitting with Dr. Mark Anthony Neal. Brother Mark, it’s so great to have you back here in Baltimore, man. I know I only got you for a second, and we’re talking about your incredible new book, Save a Seat for Me, Notes on American Fatherhood. And I was thinking as another father in America in 2026, I wanted to ask you, it doesn’t take PhDs like we have to know that we’ve got a real fricking crisis in this country with men and masculinity and masculine culture and fatherhood, or we have a whole lot of crises that men are experiencing but aren’t dealing with well. So what do you make of all this? What do we do about it? And how can your book help us get there?
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
I think we have tried, America has tried to raise generations of warriors, if you will, to be on the front lines of American imperialism. And you can’t be human to do that. You can’t think, you can’t question, you can’t be vulnerable. So what we have done is raise two or three generations of men in America who don’t know how to be human, who don’t know how to lead into full range of who they are. We’ve been socialized to show up only certain kinds of ways, anger, rage, the ability to follow directions. Things like vulnerability are made fun of at the highest levels.
Maximillian Alvarez:
And those of us who are very vulnerable people have been made fun of.
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
Because of that.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Because of that.
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
We’ve been made to think that our responsibility in a capitalist system has literally been reduced to only making money, that our only value. And I think about this a lot as a Black father, my own father, that I’m sure he thought that his only value to me was making sure that I was fed and clothed and taken care of. And I get all of that, but I needed much more from him. As a father, I needed to be more than that for my daughters. And so I think when we look at young men who are clearly feeling so much with no outlet, their outlets become dangerous behaviors, self-directed violence,
Maximillian Alvarez:
Toxic online cultures,
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
All kinds of addictions, alcohol, Percocet, weed, porn. I mean, we can name all these things and understand it. And the fact that so many of the young men in the world today, their lives are what they can connect with on their handheld device. They don’t actually have relationships with people in the real world, don’t see a value in that. And I don’t know how we sustain that. I don’t know how we sustain our humanity in a situation where we don’t value human relationship anymore.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Well, and it’s like you see that the path that we’re on as a society or what’s left of a society is being driven by the sociopathic, psychopathic, bloodthirsty –
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
Or just plain evils.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Just plain evil maniacs who want a future where they get all the benefits of human society, but don’t have to deal with any of the humans in it. Whether they’re thinking of like, oh, AI is going to replace all their jobs and we’re going to get all the money. They’re not thinking about what the heck that’s going to mean for us. They’re just going to push us into slums and prisons and police us, hunt us, surveil us. That’s their big goddamn plan. And I think you put it so powerfully that it’s like so many men out there have the same human needs that we all have and we’re feeling them so acutely the more isolated we are, but we’re looking to find, we’re seeking inhuman avenues.
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
I mean, think about all the folks who are in relationships with chat bots. I mean, it’s surreal. I can’t have a relationship with an actual person. I don’t desire a relationship with an actual person. I need to have a relationship with some facsimile, some avatar that somehow that’s more meaningful to me than having a relationship with a person.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah. And I think even as a editor in chief and co-ED of a media network, as a media star, we recognize there’s only so much you can do online. You got to get the hell offline and you got to meet each other back on that level of shared humanity and shared reality because that’s the only way we’re going to deal with anything, anything in this country.
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
And that’s why the Baltimore Book Festival is really important. First of all, not only just a reminder, someplace that’s celebrating the written word, obviously, but folks coming together in community. We have to get back to a culture where we share in community. We read together, we listen together, we debate together instead of these media silos. I’m going to have this debate over here on this network and you’re going to have this debate over there and never the twain shall meet.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Well, and final question, but it goes really to the heart of your book. Here in Baltimore, I see this every day. I feel it as a father, but right down the street from where I live in Mondamin, earlier this summer, there were six youth who were caught on camera just beating the hell out of an elderly member of the community, a former Black Panther. It was horrific. I’ve interviewed this man and the community that’s trying to help him, but clearly everyone who is showing up to help is seeing in that video the deficit of guidance, of fatherhood, of love.
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
Of respect. Basic respect.
Maximillian Alvarez:
So what can we do about that in our everyday lives at the person to person level?
Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:
We have to be willing not just to be witnesses to these experiences or commentators.
We have to intervene and feel comfortable enough to intervene. Whoever sat down with those young men, first of all, to explain, because the easy part is to say, no, this man was important to our movement in the past. The more difficult thing is like, no, this man is important because he’s another human being and you should value life and his humanity. But if they are young men who do not value their own humanity, don’t see their own humanity, they’re going to reproduce that behavior over and over again. And so we have to have the willingness because it’s real easy to go, I’m just going to build my life in this silo and protect my family and I get it. But to take that next step to say, okay, I might not be able to talk to all six of these brothers, try to talk to two of them.
Begin that process, that one-on-one conversation that can blossom into something that’s much more significant.
“America has tried to raise generations of warriors to be on the front lines of American imperialism… So what we have done is raise two or three generations of men in America who don't know how to be human.”
The European Union once prided itself on leading the world in protecting children. Today, policymakers backed by big polluters are betraying that promise in the name of “competitiveness”.
In June 2026, Florence, Franck, and Isabelle packed their bags and headed to Brussels. Why? Because their children have all suffered serious harm from pesticides.
These children have endured physical pain and heavy medical procedures, including repeated chemotherapy treatments. And their families have shouldered both the financial and emotional burdens alongside them.
As Isabelle puts it: “It destroys a family.” Her own daughter has been fighting leukaemia for the last seven years.
And they are not alone. In 2024, almost one in 20 children in the EU were exposed to dangerous levels of pesticides; that’s 380,000 kids. Now these parents have a clear message for policymakers: prioritise public health and stop dismantling the rules that protect children against harmful substances.
In 2024, around 316,000 tonnes of toxic pesticides were sold in the EU to be sprayed across our countryside, risking not only the health of farmers but also polluting our soil, air and water.
The European Environment Agency in Copenhagen has reported environmentally unsafe levels of pesticides in about a quarter of Europe’s rivers. In groundwater – which supplies 65 percent of the water we drink in Europe – unsafe levels were detected in 11-18 percent of water bodies.
In the same year, trifluoroacetic acid, a harmful “forever chemical” that forms when ‘PFAS’ pesticides and F-gases break down, showed up in 94 percent of drinking water samples tested across 11 EU countries.
We are surrounded by pesticide pollution. It’s even in our homes.
Source: US Geological Survey/Wikimedia
But what’s happening in Brussels?
In December 2025, the European Commission proposed a legislative package that would remove fundamental environmental and health protections against pesticides in the EU.
Among other changes, the proposal – ironically labelled the ‘Food and Feed Safety’ Omnibus – suggests extending pesticide approvals indefinitely and relaxing the rules to allow pesticides already identified as hazardous to remain on the EU market.
Let that sink in, no pun intended.
These proposals are a political choice to prioritise short-term profits for Big Polluters over children’s lives, people’s health, and the nature and ecosystems we need to survive.
Human health is at stake, and children are at particular risk – as they absorb substances more easily and are less able to excrete them.
Pesticide exposure is linked to the development of childhood cancers, hormone disruption, neurodevelopmental impairments and birth defects. And prenatal and early childhood exposure can permanently alter development, with consequences that can be irreversible – and deadly.
Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the UN-declared human right to a healthy environment, all EU countries must commit to protecting children from environmental harm and ensure the highest attainable standard of health.
These principles must guide the work of EU institutions.
Yet, instead of strengthening protections, the EU is moving backwards at a worrying speed. This is largely due to intense (and repeated) lobbying from multi-billion euro corporations, which includes the pesticides industry. Corporate chemical giants now spend €46m a year just to lobby the EU; that’s over 60 percent more than in 2020.
Make it make sense
The incoherence of current EU policy is troubling. On the one hand, the EU Commission is celebrating its new Intergenerational Fairness Strategy – a framework that is meant to ensure today’s policies do not disadvantage future generations. On the other, the same institution is actively seeking to relax controls of harmful substances.
Ripping up rules that protect people and the planet only benefits Big Polluters, industries that already make billions in profits at the expense of children’s health.
What’s more, an independent assessment found that the measures the EU institutions propose “will not accelerate innovations and authorisations”. In short, these proposals would actually make Europe less competitive.
Children’s rights and youth organisations have warned that deregulation exposes children to serious (and preventable) health risks. And the international scientific community recently stressed that robust environmental risk assessments cannot be optional.
Ultimately, Europe should widen and accelerate its access to pesticide-free alternatives. It must also support farmers in their efforts to transition away from pesticides, towards a more sustainable and resilient model.
So, what can be done? First, the EU must close the tap on pesticide use and production, and support farmers transitioning to safer alternatives. Second, it’s time for leaders to hold Big Polluters accountable for the damage they cause – not force the bill onto regular taxpayers and families harmed by these toxic substances.
Florence, Franck, and Isabelle’s children are among the hundreds of thousands already affected by pesticides. And they show that victims of pesticides are not just a statistic.
The ‘Food and Feed Safety Omnibus’ raises fundamental questions. Who exactly is the EU’s food policy supposed to protect? How many more children need to be harmed for politicians to act? And what kind of future do EU institutions want to build?
Should pesticide protections be treated as obstacles to short-term profits, or should children be able to grow up safely?
Politicians should reject this devastating Omnibus proposal and work instead to support the EU’s transition to safe, sustainable, and resilient farming.
European Union countries have paid more than €100 billion extra for energy this year without receiving additional oil or gas, according to EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, as disruption linked to the Iran war drives another energy shock through the European economy.
Speaking ahead of an informal meeting of EU energy ministers in Dublin, Jørgensen said Europe had “surpassed €100 billion” in additional spending.
“We have now surpassed €100 billion that we’ve paid extra for our energy this year without receiving one extra molecule of gas or oil,” he said in the European Commission’s recording of his remarks.
The figure puts a direct cost on the price shock which has followed disruption to oil and liquefied natural gas supplies associated with the conflict involving Iran.
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Under normal conditions, the waterway handles roughly one fifth of globally traded oil and significant LNG volumes.
Europe remains heavily exposed because most of the oil it consumes and about 80 per cent of its gas requirements come from outside the EU.
The consequences were already visible in trade figures published before the latest ministerial meeting.
Europe was therefore paying substantially more without materially increasing the amount of energy it purchased.
The pressure has intensified as winter approaches.
EU gas storage is around 70 per cent full, roughly 12 percentage points below the level recorded at the same stage last year. Jørgensen has warned governments to continue filling storage or consider reducing demand if required.
Possible measures include limiting temperatures in public buildings, restricting outdoor heating and switching off unnecessary public lighting, according to recommendations circulated to governments ahead of the Dublin meeting.
The informal meeting of EU energy ministers focused on energy affordability, security of supply and Europe’s continuing exposure to international fossil-fuel markets.
Irish Energy Minister Darragh O’Brien described the situation as the second major fossil-fuel shock Europe had faced in four years and argued that domestic clean-energy production was essential if the EU wanted to reduce its vulnerability to future crises.
Europe is in a stronger physical position than during the 2022 energy crisis.
It has expanded LNG import infrastructure, increased renewable electricity generation and reduced gas demand. It has also sharply reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas.
But that restructuring has created different dependencies.
European buyers now compete more directly for LNG on global markets, meaning events in the Gulf, Asia or the United States can rapidly affect the price paid by European consumers.
EU Today reported earlier this month that reduced LNG availability and disruption around Hormuz had left European gas storage at historically weak seasonal levels.
Diesel presents another problem.
Europe became more dependent on imported refined products after reducing purchases from Russia, with the United States now supplying approximately half of EU diesel imports.
Washington has considered restrictions on diesel exports as domestic US prices rise. European officials have urged the Trump administration not to introduce such measures, warning that they would increase pressure on international markets.
Emergency reserves provide some protection.
EU countries are required to maintain strategic oil stocks, while the International Energy Agency coordinated a release of 400 million barrels from member-country reserves earlier this year.
France and Germany hold a particularly large share of Europe’s strategic diesel inventories. Further releases remain possible if international markets deteriorate, although no new coordinated decision has yet been taken.
The current crisis is also feeding into the EU’s longer-term energy debate.
The security argument extends beyond climate policy. An EU Today Research Desk paper published in June examined how concentrated fossil-fuel supply routes and maritime chokepoints can transmit geopolitical shocks into European prices, infrastructure and industry.
The current disruption provides a practical example.
Europe has not bought substantially more fuel, but it is paying tens of billions of euros more because the international price of the energy it imports has risen.
The immediate concern is whether supplies and gas inventories will be sufficient through the coming winter without another sharp increase in prices.
The longer-term question is how much of Europe’s energy demand can be moved away from imported fossil fuels before another geopolitical crisis produces the same result.
For EU governments, Jørgensen’s €100 billion figure provides a measure of the cost of that dependency.
China has warned that it will respond if the European Union introduces new trade restrictions targeting Chinese companies or products, as France and Germany push for stronger European instruments to address what they regard as unfair commercial practices.
China’s Ministry of Commerce issued the warning after reports that several EU governments were discussing a mechanism modelled partly on Section 301 of US trade law, which allows Washington to investigate foreign trade practices and impose countermeasures.
Beijing described such an approach as protectionist and unilateral and warned that it could damage continuing negotiations between China and the EU.
“If the European side insists on introducing discriminatory restrictive measures against Chinese companies or products,” the ministry said, China would “resolutely respond” to defend the interests of its industries.
The warning comes as Europe’s trade relationship with China is moving further up the political agenda.
According to the European Commission’s latest EU-China trade figures, EU exports to China were worth €199.5 billion in 2025 while imports reached €559.5 billion.
The goods deficit stood at €359.9 billion, compared with €312.2 billion in 2024.
China remained the EU’s largest source of goods imports and its fourth-largest export market.
Brussels argues that the scale of the imbalance is connected not only to competitiveness but also to state support, market-access restrictions and other structural differences between the two economies.
China disputes that assessment and has repeatedly accused the EU of using industrial and security arguments to justify protectionism.
The argument is already visible in several industries.
The EU imposed countervailing duties on Chinese battery electric vehicles after an investigation concluded that state subsidies were giving Chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage in the European market.
The automotive dispute is important because Europe is simultaneously trying to attract Chinese manufacturing investment.
France and Spain addressed that question during President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to Madrid.
Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez agreed on the need for greater European unity in responding to Chinese competition. They also discussed whether Chinese investors entering strategically important European industries should be required to provide stronger commitments on issues such as technology transfer.
Macron said that companies on both sides of the Pyrenees needed protection when they faced unfair competition and argued that “the only response that works is European.”
France has generally favoured stronger European trade defences.
Germany has traditionally approached the issue more cautiously because major German manufacturers have substantial commercial exposure to China. Increasing competition from Chinese producers, particularly in industrial sectors where German companies were once dominant, has altered the debate.
Reports that Berlin and Paris are now working together on a stronger trade instrument therefore suggest a potentially important shift.
The two countries are said to be considering a European mechanism inspired by the American Section 301 process, although no final proposal has yet been adopted by the European Commission.
EU trade law already provides several instruments.
Brussels can impose anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties following investigations, use the Foreign Subsidies Regulation to examine state-backed investment and procurement, and deploy the Anti-Coercion Instrument where another country uses economic pressure against the EU or a member state.
The discussion now concerns whether those instruments are sufficient when governments believe a problem extends across industries rather than affecting an individual product.
At the same time, Brussels and Beijing have established a Trade and Investment Consultations mechanism, with workstreams covering trade balances, export controls, intellectual property and World Trade Organisation reform.
China’s Commerce Ministry has warned that introducing tougher measures while those talks continue would damage trust.
That leaves the EU facing two parallel choices: continue negotiations intended to narrow the trade dispute while also developing stronger instruments in case those negotiations fail.
France and Germany are increasingly arguing that Europe needs greater leverage.
Beijing’s response is that using that leverage against Chinese companies would bring countermeasures.
The next stage will depend on whether the Franco-German proposal develops into a formal EU initiative. If it does, the dispute will move beyond duties on particular products towards a broader argument over how Europe intends to manage its economic relationship with China.
Login
