Danish Dairy Board Brussels s.a.
DDBB
DDBB varetager den danske mejeriindustris interesser i forhold til EU politikken.
ID: 13118423364-86
Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Niels Flemming Hansen (Member of the European Parliament)
28 May 2025 · Meet the MEP
Meeting with Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea (Director Environment), Humberto Delgado Rosa (Director Environment)
23 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on relevant EU policy for the cattle/dairy value chain
Meeting with Asger Christensen (Member of the European Parliament)
22 Apr 2025 · Agriculture
Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development)
22 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on market perspectives and on the EU Vision for Agriculture and Food
10 Mar 2025
The Danish Dairy Board (DDB) represents the Danish dairy industry which consists of cooperatives and privately owned dairies. DDB are disappointed that the proposal has been prepared without prior impact analysis and without considering the needs of the sectors in the individual countries. We see this work with the targeted amendments on the CMO as a step in the wrong direction DDB rejects the Commission's proposal for targeted changes to the sCMO for Article 148. The proposal will not achieve the intended effect of strengthening the position of farmers in the food chain, instead it will lead to increased bureaucracy and unnecessary and burdensome regulations rather than de-bureaucratization. Below we will elaborate our concerns about the changes to article 148 DDB finds that the existing legislation of the milk package in the Common Market Organisation is a proven framework that provides a good and overall sufficient platform to safeguard fairness for the farmers in the food chain. It provides the EU member states the powers to demand mandatory contracts to protect farmers from asymmetrical exploitation if needed. The existing Article 148 thus provides a minimum protection for those who are not members of a cooperative/other organisation and at the same time the cooperative structure is respected. Moreover, it provides the EU member states the powers to demand mandatory contracts to protect farmers from asymmetrical exploitation. The new Commissions proposal will at best lead to increased bureaucracy and unnecessary and burdensome rules rather than de-bureaucratisation. Focus should be on market-driven initiatives rather than rigid regulatory measures. Imposing mandatory con-tracts would undermine contractual freedom, reduce the role of Member States in regulating their national markets, and add significant administrative burdens without delivering tangible benefits for farmers or the sector. Contractual freedom is a cornerstone of private law and essential for the efficient functioning of the dairy market. Removing this discretion contradicts the principle of subsidiarity and risks creating a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect the diversity of European dairy markets. Maintaining the existing voluntary approach, leaving it up to the Member States to decide whether the delivery of milk and dairy products should be subject to a written contract, could ensure that the diversity and the structural peculiarities of the dairy sector in many Member States would not be altered and thus avoid being too burdensome. Additionally, production cost should not be introduced to the contract content. There should not be any interference with the freedom of farmers to establish a business model of remuneration based on market returns. To address production cost, we should instead look for ways to reduce red tape, improve productivity, innovation and overall competitiveness Moreover, it is important that the statutes of Coops are acknowledged as a fully equal alternative to individual legal contracts and the proposal should not interfere with the freedom of farmers to organise themselves. DDB points out the importance of co-operatives, producer organizations, etc., which have an internal democratic structure, being exempt from the conditions and requirements laid down in Article 148, subsection 4 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).
Read full responseMeeting with Stine Bosse (Member of the European Parliament)
4 Nov 2024 · European trade and labelling policy
Meeting with Asger Christensen (Member of the European Parliament)
6 Dec 2023 · Agriculture
Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste
21 Apr 2023
Attached DDBB statement on the proposal for a regulation on packaging and packaging waste.
Read full responseResponse to Carbon Removal Certification
22 Mar 2023
The Danish Dairy Board Brussels s.a. welcomes the consultation on certification of carbon EU rules. We refer to our consultation reply in the Commission public consultation Call for evidence for an impact assessment of 2022. We would additionally like to highlight the following point in response to the Commission proposal for a regulation: - We support the Commission setting a voluntary common certification framework for carbon removals to incentivize farmers to increase their level of carbon removals. Today there is already an opportunity for farmers to enter the currently unregulated voluntary carbon market which underlines the need for guidance. - We encourage close dialogue with private actors who are today developing methodologies to identify advantages and disadvantages. DEFINITIONS - A broad definition of carbon removals activities: For carbon farming to become an effective tool for contributing to the achievement of international/European and national climate objectives, it is important to work from a broad definition which can cover activities in all EU member states, including activities in countries with intensive agricultural practices. - To be able to ensure best possible improvements all greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) should be accounted for, and we would like to have one certification system for removals as well as for reductions (feed additives to reduce enteric methane emissions, manure management, improved crop rotation e.g.). It will help create a real business opportunity for farmers who want to contribute to achieving the EU's climate goals. - Peat soils: Even though reduced emissions from peat soils is not a removal as such, it is an integral aspect of the soil management process and thereby it makes sense to align all net benefits to the environment. - Biodiversity: Carbon farming practices can also have other positive side effects such as promoting biodiversity. This is also addressed by the Commission. Carbon removal activities that generate co-benefits for biodiversity should be rewarded additionally, compared to activities that do not generate any co-benefits. - The framework must recognize the efforts of those farmers who have already been proactive with their grass land and soil management. METHODS - Measuring carbon farming/certification: We support the QU.A.L.ITY (QUantification, Additionality and baselines, Long-term storage, sustainabilITY) proposed by the Commission. This is fundamental in ensuring a robust certification of carbon removals. - Alignment of methodology: Ideally, the same methodology for carbon removals should be applicable for different end-uses (national or corporate inventory reporting, corporate claims, voluntary carbon offsetting market e.g.).
Read full responseMeeting with Asger Christensen (Member of the European Parliament)
29 Sept 2021 · Methane emission
Meeting with Asger Christensen (Member of the European Parliament)
2 Mar 2021 · Methane emission
Response to Farm to Fork Strategy
16 Mar 2020
The Danish dairy companies – big and small – are already working ambitiously to translate the national and European environmental and climate ambitions into a sustainable dairy reality.
We favour a holistic and consistent approach from the Commission and Member States in regards to the Green Deal and Farm to Fork initiatives. We recommend that all these initiatives are tackled together within the Farm to Fork Strategy and to look broadly across the European food systems and assess them based on the three qualitative pillars of sustainability: social, environment and economic alongside the nutritional aspect of foods. We will only succeed in providing high quality nutrition sustainably if the right balance is struck between incentivizing change and maintaining the economic sustainability of food production in the EU. Therefore we see a need for adequate impact assessments of the future polices.
Our experience in Denmark shows that significant steps towards sustainable food production can be achieved only if government authorities, the academic sector and the food industry work together. We encourage the Farm to Fork Strategy to draw on these experiences and play to strengths of market driven change that empowers farmers and the food sector to be a leading force in the transition to a green economy. This requires positive and comprehensive investments – public and private, national and European - in research, development of new tools for farmers and companies and support of the green demands of consumers.
It is important that the Commission recognizes the progress already made. The Farm to Fork Strategy should incentivize further transition and not punish actors and companies that have already initiated and implemented initiatives that promote sustainability, food safety and reduction of the climate footprint of their products. As innovation is inherently linked to production, the companies leading the green transition should instead be encouraged and supported to develop even further.
True sustainability requires a scientific and evidence based approach to measure the real environmental footprint of good. It is necessary and valuable to judge products on their contribution to a healthy and sustainable diet. We would caution against rushing to implement an easy and quick fix to this. The science of nutrition and sustainability is in its infancy and the issues complex. If the Farm to Fork strategy is to drive positive changes in consumer behaviour, then labelling must communicate this complexity clearly so consumers do not make choices that may lead to worse health or nutritional outcomes. Information needs to be understandable to informed consumers and unequivocal from a scientific perspective, as well as coherent with the overarching goal of promoting a healthy and sustainable diet in line with national dietary guidelines.
Research, investment, and innovation in circular economy solutions for sustainable packaging play a vital role which would need to be favoured by the EU legislative framework. A framework facilitating investments in new and cutting-edge packaging solutions would have a positive impact on the overall environmental footprint of packaging and would support the overarching goal of reducing packaging waste and increase the recyclability of packaging, while ensuring the protection of food safety.
Future initiatives taken by the Commission should include actions that can boost the market for secondary raw material used for food packaging, an EU model for separate packaging waste collection as well as a harmonized framework allowing communication to the consumers on the sustainability of packaging, including its recyclability.
We look forward to contribute to the EU´s work of building a coherent and consistent framework of actions and protect the functioning of the European Single Market and the Danish Dairy Board invites the Commission to consult us on the progress already made in Denmark.
Read full responseMeeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner) and
10 Dec 2014 · Milk market measures. Debt levels in Denmark