Topic — A proposal simplifying EU food law to reduce industry administrative burdens.

Message — PFP requests extending simplification to more regulations and streamlining contaminant rules. They also seek faster approvals for pesticides and emergency mechanisms for supply chains.123

Why — Streamlined regulations would reduce compliance costs and improve the sector's competitiveness.45

Impact — Consumer and environmental groups may face risks from relaxed pesticide residue limits.6

Topic — A European Commission consultation on accelerating the decarbonization of heating and cooling.

Message — The industry calls for competitive electricity prices and public funding for mature technologies. They also request faster grid connections and tax reductions for industrial residues used as fuel.123

Why — These changes would reduce operational costs and de-risk investments in climate-neutral technologies.45

Impact — Producers of forest-sourced biomass may lose market share to industrial processing residues.6

Topic — The EU is consulting on a plan to increase industrial electrification for decarbonisation.

Message — Access to long term contracts with competitive electricity prices based on production costs is requested. They call for faster grid connections and exemptions from grid tariffs for energy-intensive industries. Public funding should support mature and proven technologies rather than just breakthrough innovations.1234

Why — Lowering taxes and providing operational support would reduce the high cost of electrification.56

Topic — The EU is updating methods for sampling and analyzing pesticide residues in food.

Message — PFP requests clarifying that the regulation applies only to official controls rather than food businesses. They also advocate for harmonizing sampling methods and extending flexibility to food products.123

Why — This ensures businesses avoid economically unsustainable and destructive testing requirements for every product lot.4

Topic — The EU is developing a new legal framework for plants created using genomic techniques.

Message — They support exempting certain genomic plants from mandatory GMO labeling and traceability rules. The group requests a harmonized verification process that remains simple and not overburdened. They also express concern regarding the potential rise of negative NGT-free labels.123

Why — This would lower operational costs by removing strict labeling and tracking obligations.4

Impact — Producers of NGT-free products lose their ability to differentiate via negative labels.5

Topic — This consultation concerns new rules for substantiating environmental claims using footprint methods.

Message — The group urges the Commission to confirm which food products require specific environmental footprint rules. They question prioritizing food claims now to avoid risks of switching between different regulations. Finally, they advocate for harmonized recognition of labeling schemes across the EU.123

Why — Harmonized rules would reduce administrative burdens and prevent companies from adapting to multiple regulations.45

Impact — The broader green transition suffers because the directive primarily benefits a niche of leading companies.6

Topic — This consultation establishes classification criteria for environmentally sustainable activities and investments.

Message — PFP demands seats on the Sustainable Finance Platform to influence technical criteria. They also request lower plastic recycling thresholds and broader recognition of bio-based feedstocks.123

Why — Representation would ensure industry members maintain access to finance and agricultural supplies.4

Impact — Environmental groups lose out if plastic recycling targets are weakened for the food industry.56

Topic — The EU seeks to update rules for the sustainable use of pesticides.

Message — Maintain current pest management definitions to prevent crop damage before treatment is permitted. The group also seeks a legal framework for new genomic breeding techniques.12

Why — This protects agricultural yields and ensures the continued competitiveness of food processors.34

Impact — European citizens risk lower food security and higher reliance on foreign imports.56

Topic — The Commission is reviewing rules for public reporting on industrial pollutant releases and resources.

Message — PFP warns that the obligatory publication of business sensitive data may damage companies. They oppose rules requiring disclosure of production volumes, energy, and water consumption.1

Why — Restricting these disclosures would protect companies from financial damage and competitive disadvantage.2

Topic — The consultation seeks views on revising rules for industrial pollution and environmental performance.

Message — The organization recommends allowing authorities to set emission values above the lowest levels. They argue against binding performance limits for resources and request longer timelines for testing new technologies.123

Why — Companies would avoid strict compliance costs and the technical burden of mandatory benchmarks.45

Impact — Nearby residents would struggle to prove environmental damages or access sensitive operational information.67

Topic — The Commission is revising the Energy Efficiency Directive to reach higher 2030 climate goals.

Message — Campaign plants operational for fewer than 180 days should be exempt from heating network requirements. The directive should recognize combined heat and power as a sustainable energy solution for industry. Audit recommendations must remain confidential to protect secret operational data.123

Why — This would prevent high investment costs for seasonal plants and protect secret operational data.45

Impact — Local heating networks lose potential energy inputs that could have improved municipal heating efficiency.6

Topic — The Commission is revising the Energy Tax Directive to align taxation with climate objectives.

Message — The organization says energy products used by power plants should be exempt from taxation. They also ask for lower tax rates for biofuels from food and feed crops.123

Why — This would support sector competitiveness and reduce the existing risk of carbon leakage.45

Impact — Environmentalists lose as incentives for biofuels from food crops may damage the environment.6

Topic — A legislative review of the EU Emissions Trading System for 2030.

Message — PFP requests removing energy audit conditionality and maintaining free allowances for biomass-using plants. They also demand grid reinforcements and competitive electricity prices to facilitate rural industrial electrification.12

Why — This would protect the industry from financial penalties while reducing electrification costs.3

Impact — Environmental goals are undermined if firms ignore energy efficiency recommendations without penalty.4

Topic — The Commission is proposing legally binding targets to reduce food waste across Europe.

Message — The association wants certain processing sectors excluded from waste measurement and reduction targets. They argue that non-edible agricultural materials should not be classified as food waste.12

Why — The industry would avoid new reporting burdens and reduction targets for materials they classify as valuable by-products.34

Topic — The European Commission is considering extending mandatory country-of-origin labeling to more food products.

Message — The organization requests maintaining the current voluntary legal framework for origin labeling. They argue that existing rules are adequate and do not support new mandatory requirements for their products.1

Why — Maintaining voluntary labeling helps these industries avoid the costs of tracking ingredient origins.2

Impact — Consumers lose access to standardized information about the origin of certain food categories.3

Topic — Revised rules allowing Member States to compensate industries for rising electricity emission costs.

Message — The organization requests the Commission include the vegetable oil industry in targeted sector assessments. They highlight that manufacture of oils and fats faces a significant carbon leakage risk.12

Why — Inclusion would allow these companies to receive state aid to offset electricity costs.3

Topic — Reform of EU food risk assessments to improve transparency and sustainability.

Message — Sensitive data should only be published together with the final EFSA opinion. PFP calls for releasing exclusively data actually used in risk assessments. This avoids damaging industry competitiveness and creating unfounded fears.123

Why — Restricting data access prevents competitors from identifying company methods and protects brand reputation.45

Impact — Transparency advocates and researchers lose immediate access to raw data before official conclusions.6

Topic — This consultation addresses implementing rules for voluntary food origin labeling in Europe.

Message — PFP requests a guidance document to address lingering interpretative uncertainties. They emphasize that complex processing makes high precision reporting difficult for some.12

Why — Clearer guidelines would reduce legal uncertainty and facilitate smoother business-to-business transactions.34

Impact — Consumers may receive less precise information regarding the specific origin of ingredients.5

Topic — This consultation reviews the transparency and sustainability of EU food risk assessment models.

Message — The association supports risk assessments based on sound science regardless of the funding source. They advocate for educational campaigns to improve public perception and avoid false messages about food. New transparency measures should follow existing laws and build upon current agency initiatives.12

Why — This would protect the validity of industry-funded research and reduce public opposition to their products.3

Impact — Groups seeking to restrict private funding from safety evaluations would find their objectives blocked.4

Topic — EU consultation on improving the food supply chain through transparency and fair trading rules.

Message — The group requests maintaining the status quo on value-sharing because they lack the flexibility to implement such systems. They reject mandatory unfair trading rules, arguing that legislative action creates unnecessary administrative complexities and burden.123

Why — The organization avoids increased compliance costs while protecting its narrow profit margins from regulatory interference.45

Impact — Small-scale farmers lose potential protections and profit-sharing mechanisms that would buffer them against price volatility.67