This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Thank you, thank you very much, Mr.

Commissioner, on behalf of the Agri Committee, Madame Reconova.

Thank you, Mr Commissioner, time and time again in the Agriculture Committee we keep coming back to what our farmers are facing costly energy,

costly fertilizers, drought, bureaucracy and today we are.

We are making the right step, we are simplifying access to fertilizers.

Cutting excessive red tape will make the market move and will cut prices. What does that mean in practice?

Innovative products, as well as animal byproducts, will not be waiting around for years. They will get immediately to the field. Less bureaucracy, that doesn't mean less safety.

Our controls on imports stay as strict as before.

The result is very clear it's a better choice and a better result for our farmers. Thank you.

We jump into the second part on behalf of the EPP Group, Mr. Deme.

Thank you, the chemicals industry is one of the pillars of European competitiveness.

It is the invisible driving force behind a lot of our productive sectors,

something that boosts our ability to innovate and also to guarantee our strategic economy.

All too often, however, our companies have to contend with onerous regulations and excessive standards and We are unable to compete on a global stage but at the same time we are reining it in with disproportionate rules,

and that is why we welcome this package of measures to simplify something which of course was complex and rather opaque,

but we want the kinds of standards that can help Europe to produce and innovate at the same time protecting our environment and also guaranteeing to our citizens reliable and transparent information.

We want to allow our citizens to make free choices,

and that is why we need transparent rules and we don't want ideological approaches to this.

We have to regulate a whole sector, but we shouldn't be weakening Europe in the process.

Looking at fertilizers, for example,

we of course got various global events which weigh on our ability to import fertilizer.

Producers and that is why we need new rules.

But at the same time we need to increase stocks and try to reinforce our food security.

Citizens are clamoring for a more pragmatic Europe in which competition and security are not mutually exclusive,

but rather the two preconditions for building a stronger,

more innovative Europe which is able to look after our future. Group. Mr. B. Sorry. The.

Simplification cannot be at the cost of diminishing the health and safety standards for our citizens.

This was our leading principle in this regulation.

During the negotiations, we were able to achieve specific guarantees.

We have very strict limits for carcinogenic,

mutagenic, and toxic ingredients in cosmetics.

We stopped having long deadlines for withdrawal and we kept. Labels that people can really read.

At the same time, we have much more predictability for the European producers,

including those who make natural ingredients and essential oils.

This was very important for the traditional essential oil production industry in Southern Europe,

including the famous Bulgarian rose oil, which is part of the economy and cultural legacy of the overall region.

We wanted to have a scientific assessment of the committee that deals with consumer protection.

We have strong protection for consumers and we have clear and applicable rules for the industry.

This is how we can protect the people and at the same time, the economy. Thank you. The PFE Group.

Thank you, Mr Commissioner, on behalf of patriots, we welcome any steps that, after years of unsustainable Greer policies, pave the way back to more realistic economy,

industrial and climate policy, and this naturally also includes this omnibus proposal,

which is specifically designed to relief in the chemicals, cosmetics and fertilizers sector.

On the chemicals for the CLP regulation, we introduced significant simplifications regarding labeling, small packaging, advertising and compliance deadlines,

and this will for sure simplify multilingual requirements and of course are to the benefit of companies,

especially SMEs. In the cosmetics, we simplify exemption procedures.

We clarify the criteria and take greater account of the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives.

Here, unfortunately, some of the requirements of the sectors have not been taken on board and even some more restrictions have occurred,

but we must see this as a package.

In fertilizers regarding the fertilizers, the compromise highlights the importance of maintaining competitive European production in the face of imports from third countries,

as it is essential to ensure that traditional fertilizers remain. As a viable and accessible option. I am grateful for this.

I think we can support this package as it improves the situation just as a takeaway message. Please, let's not fall asleep.

This will help, but it will definitely not be enough to save the chemical industry in Europe. On behalf of the ECR Group. I.

Thank you very much indeed President, the Omnibus 6 package certainly is headed in the right direction,

seeking to slash red tape and to gradually restore the competitiveness of European industry,

but Let's be under no illusions.

It is not enough if it continues to impose unsustainable energy costs on our companies as a result of ideological policies such as the ETS.

Now our chemicals industry of course produces fertilizers and European industries as a whole.

Has to be able to invest and compete on international markets,

whereas you've got people in Brussels imposing costs on them and not on companies from outside Europe. That's intolerable. Now just look at C.

We have got the European Parliament not Even being able to approve of a safeguard clause put forward by us in the Conservatives,

which would have been a good compromise on Article 27A.

So we,

Have a system whereby it is not enough just to make labeling more flexible and to try and cut red tape.

These are sacrosanct, but they're not enough to make up for energy prices and the loss of competitiveness and the risk of the offshoring of our production,

and that is why Europe must make sure it doesn't confuse ecological.

Transition with the destruction of its own industry.

If we want to protect the environment, then we have to do so in a way which does not destroy our European productive capacity. We need to change.

We need to have a suspension and radical change in the emissions trading system. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner, every single morning, every one of us.

He uses a toothbrush with a toothpaste, puts a bit of a cream, we use deodorant, perfumes.

Our children play with their mother glitters, laughing, smiling,

they often bite a bit of a lipstick and smear it over the face.

We put sunscreen on their faces in the belief that we are protecting them,

and that is why we opposed the weakening of the protection of our health and the health of our beloved ones from cancer causing chemicals.

We always will, and no, dear Commission, keeping them for years longer in the products when we have safe substitutes is not equal protection of the health and the environment,

and it's not protection of industry.

It is not a protection of competitiveness if we allow such imported products onto our market,

if we don't label them right.

There is a lot that we still need to do.

So I believe this omnibus, besides simplification, gives the Commission a very clear signal and taught you a lesson. Health and the environment are important.

It has proven that citizens want stronger protection, not weaker.

I believe as a European Parliament, we have a strong mandate, and I'm sure that the Commission noticed the result of the votes in this House to act and phase out endocrine disrupting chemicals that interfere with hormones,

cause infertility, reduction of sperm, metabolic problems or developmental disorders in children.

Therefore, I expect that the Commission will not stand idle and listen to the citizens and science. Thank you.

Thank you, dear Vice President, on behalf of the Greens, Madam Spey.

Dear colleagues, you've bought toothpaste, shampoo, soap with your eyes closed. Why?

Because there are European laws that protect you.

Yesterday when a cosmetic product was considered to be carcinogenic, it was immediately withdrawn from the market.

Tomorrow it can remain there for 9 to 36 months,

which means that a child born today could be exposed for 3 years to carcinogenic substances.

How can you explain this to families who are victims today?

How can you explain this to people who will be victims tomorrow?

To women suffering from breast cancer, are you going to say to them, well, it's October, let's put on our pink ribbons.

What will you say when they say you knew and you didn't do anything?

They'll wonder what the point of the EU is today. What are you going to answer them?

You'll have to tell them the whole truth.

Today the EU is putting dividends before the protection of your lives.

My next speaker on behalf of the Left is Mr. Claus.

The absurd What is absurd in this proposal is that it will allow.

Big cosmetic companies to keep carcinogenics in their products for much longer than they do today. Sometimes for years.

Without even as much as a warning label,

so people won't even be able to tell that their cosmetics contain carcinogenic substances.

This is such a clear example that the so-called simplification. Is deterioration.

Because it doesn't simplify the current rules in any way.

Well, yes, there's an automatic prolongation in case a company complains, so it might even increase the administrative burden. The rules could have been simplified.

If things are known to be carcinogenic or might be carcinogenic,

phase them out, but instead we have made rules more complicated.

So the Left has now proposed to reject the entire proposal,

and I really hope many of you will come to your senses and say no to this absurd deterioration of protection.

Which is part of this proposal because that's the only decent thing to do on behalf of the ESN Group, Mr. Snow Bush.

I take this opportunity to say that they close the eye, they catch the eye is closed from now on. Please, Mr. Snowgus.

Thank you, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our chemical industry suffers from too much regulation from Brussels,

a failed energy policy from the EU, and from wars that are not ours. We urgently need simplification.

We have seen tough negotiations in Parliament to try and deal with the fragmented regulations on packaging and labeling and to streamline them.

Also for cosmetics in the future, we should have simplified rules that do not impact consumer protection.

Fertilizer products will have new, the possibility to use new microorganisms.

That's good news for industry and for agriculture.

But we have to ask ourselves, as always, will, new, what will the new regulation mean in terms of cost and,

bureaucracy, when it's implemented, this is manageable for small companies.

When it comes to the implementation, we'll have to see if there were really,

measurable improvements in terms of simplification.

At the moment, the omnibus seems to be going in the right direction,

and we as the Parliament have a responsibility to free other sectors from unnecessary bureaucracy.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr. Skordas and Mr. Müller for all of their work. Thank you.

Now we jump into the third part of the debate, and my first speaker is Mr. Dal. Thank you for the President.

Dear colleagues,

Law should serve all people and should be understood by all people.

That is how they introduced the Danish law of 1241, the oldest law we have. It's an example of simplification which is. A good way of riding it.

Napoleón collected all laws in just one law,

so have a clear structured law, but something happened along the way.

Because 200 years later, in Europe,

we have a remarkable ability to move away from these healthy principles that I started with. We have rules that change rules.

With referral to other rules,

and we have procedures for how to simplify the procedures, which is nonsensical.

Any hours spent on unnecessary red tape will not be used for production or creation of jobs,

so let's be honest.

There is not a directive or a regulation or a decision in the EU that would not need to be revised.

Law should serve citizens, so we are happy to see this proposal.

I hope we can return to the old visions of Europe. My next speaker is.

Thank you, Commissioner, just a year ago, the European Commission put forward a proposal to simplify regulation on chemicals which represent a backsliding in terms of protection on human health because it was reducing information on packaging as well as security controls for CMR In the meantime,

we have managed to considerably improve the text and we have managed to limit the use of harmful products and products in daily use and we have made sure that consumers enjoy accessible and clear labeling,

and we obviously want to help our companies but never at the cost of the health of ordinary people in Europe.

Our safety standards are not an obstacle for European competitiveness rather quite the opposite.

They are one of its trump cards, and that is why we in the Socialists continue to defend the rights of people to know what is in the products they use,

and we think that protection of human health transcends everything else. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, this text finally brings about the simplification our companies were working for without compromising consumer safety,

so this is a step forward, but we are still far from what needs to be achieved.

Let's listen to our farmers, our, our, our businesses, our entrepreneurs.

Who say we need to put an end to the administrative burden that you've been imposing on them for years with absurd and bureaucratic constraints,

you have held back our industry to the advantage of unfair competition from outside.

While we are Stifled by red tape, they are free to rake in the money.

So it's high time that we broke our ideological chains and we gave our manufacturers back the freedom to innovate and to produce.

It's only by throwing off these corsets that we'll be able to revive productivity,

growth, and power. Madam, you have a blue card, madam. OK, my next speaker is Madame Tigrid.

Thank you, the Commission wants to have applause for having simplified the rules that they created themselves. It.

What are we going to do to create progress in Europe unless we correct the mistakes we have made.

A lot of people, a lot of member states now want an emergency break for EU legislation. Enough is enough.

As the Swedish Democrats, stand for this,

we don't want all of these excessive rules from the EU's Greer transition.

They cost more than they bring in terms of, benefits. So stop.

Going in this direction, we need less bureaucracy. Thank you. Thank you very much, dear colleague. My next speaker is Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Commissioner, we talk constantly about our competitiveness,

but at the same time we make it more difficult for our businesses to compete with the rest of the world.

In the US, it only takes 18 months to have an approval for a new product like bio pesticides,

whereas in Europe it can take up to 10 years because of all this red tape.

That means that businesses move their jobs and investments, so there's less made in Europe and we're more dependent on the world. What a crying shame.

We are looking to which papers we need to stamped in Europe. We could easily remove red tape.

We can protect people and the environment without suffocating our businesses.

This is much more simple regulation, and that even while we hold on to security for the new products,

we must increase our independence and our competitiveness so that this agreement is the only right way to go. We need more common sense.

Not looking down at our desk but looking up into the real world because there are a lot of climate friendly products out there also in Europe. Thank you. My next speaker is. Cosmetic Cosmetics, sun cream. Lipstick, toothpaste.

European citizens in 2026 are expecting one thing,

and that is for Europe to protect their health from all of these toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. But what is the Commission doing? Well, quite the opposite.

It is lifting restrictions on these toxic substances.

It's Time Europe put an end to this cancer factory.

That is what European citizens expect and that is what we should be doing.

We do not want legislation which does not banish these substances from products on the European market.

It is an insult to all cancer victims in Europe.

Unfortunately, however, what the Commission is doing is not enough to safeguard our citizens' health. We need to go even further.

We need to ban toxic carcinogenic substances in our cosmetics products.

We're not doing that yet, but that is what our citizens expect us to do. Madam You have the floor. Thank you, Commissioner.

Dear colleagues, good news in principle, we are on the right path when it comes to simplification and whittling away red tape,

and now in the chemical sector, we are relieving the burden on producers.

Electronic labeling and more straightforward labeling requirements, these are steps in the right direction,

but a lot more steps need to follow so that our entrepreneurs can feel the positive effects of this.

On an everyday basis, Not enough is being done to make people's lives easier.

This is what we hear from business when we go to visit them.

Instead of focusing on new ideas, business people continue to have to grapple and put time and money into compliance,

and this brings us to the main problem which is That bureaucracy doesn't just cost time and money,

it also costs the cognitive capacities of entrepreneurs.

They need time to invent, to create new ideas,

keeping business in Europe, Requires talent, innovation.

And also the unique society of values that we represent.

So these are our assets we need to be able to exploit them by giving them freedom, security, and competitiveness.

Thank you, with this simplification package for chemicals, the.

Has shown it is moving in the wrong direction.

I can't understand how the Commission could think it is sensible to allow these carcinogenic substances in cosmetic provinces.

This is something we want to see an end to,

and I hope the Commission will take on point the very clear message it is getting from the European.

In Parliament, it should not be easier to use these chemical substances.

They are dangerous for the environment and for people's health.

We do not want to make it, simpler to use these carcinogenic substances.

We want to say no to these harmful substances, to PFAS, it is time for the Commission to stop.

Moving down this path and to protect us from these harmful substances,

we will be keeping a very close eye on how the Commission acts. Thank you. Mr. Berrigan is my next speaker.

Thank you, I strongly believe that simplifying European legislation is essential for improving the competitiveness of our businesses,

especially small and medium sized enterprises.

For too long, European companies have faced excessive administrative burdens,

complicated procedures and unnecessary costs.

Omnibus is an important step towards reducing these burdens and allowing businesses to focus on innovation. Investment and growth.

At the same time, simplification must not come at the expense of people's health and safety.

I therefore welcome the fact that The compromise preserves essential safeguards, including clear hazard labeling,

consumer access to safety information and appropriate restrictions on carcinogenic and other hazardous substances in cosmetic products.

We have demonstrated that reducing bureaucracy and protecting public health are not contradictory objectives. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now my speaker is Madame Lukasz.

Thank you, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, everybody starts the day using cosmetics,

whether it's toothpaste, face cream, shampoo.

These all belong to our day to day ritual and is based on research,

innovation and obviously this is a great achievement for European research and science,

and we have a very strong.

Standards in Europe, high quality products, but we have to look at the aspect of competitiveness.

We know that European companies are having to meet huge requirements,

but then some of our competitors from outside send in products.

So these are sold on Chinese platforms, internet platforms, and Obviously, usually they should be suitably verified, but we find it's very difficult to meet this competition and we have to make sure that we have safe and quality products,

and I must say that I am very happy to look at the to see the results of the negotiations on Omnibus 6. We've cut unnecessary red tape.

And allow manufacturers more predictability and at the same time maintain high standards of safety and consumer protection.

This is particularly important for Polish and European chemical and cosmetics producers because Invest a lot in innovation,

create jobs, and they are competing on world markets.

We want a Europe that protects the consumers but at the same time supports its own producers and does not only set up more barriers for them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner, colleagues.

Last year we abolished the use of PFATs in toys, but this is not the end of the road.

These eternal compounds continue to contaminate for generations, and there are compounds that were found to harm the hormone system and human immune systems,

and were found in the tissue of the fetus. The AI expansion causes a new problem.

In this field, AI data centers, some of them use PFAS for cooling,

whereas there are safer alternatives at hand.

Cutting of red tape should not mean that these compounds continue to be used and harm the environment.

The blockage of the revision of the REACH is no excuse to stay idle.

Therefore, I ask the Commission that on the basis of existing REACH regulations,

they should facilitate and accelerate the limitation of PFAS and give us a schedule to ensure a safe environment for the next generations. Mr. Kole You have the floor.

Thank you, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,

in the framework of the chemicals omnibus.

We see changes to the fertilizing products regulation.

New component parts to date were linked with considerable obstacles in being included in new products,

so I welcome the simplification greatly.

Given the geopolitical situation and our dependence on fertilizer imports,

we have to make sure that we have circular economy results found.

Looking at the fertilizing products action plan, there's some important points that the Commission has posted.

Now we need to make sure we implement the simplification quickly so that fertilizing products can come into Europe more easily. Thank you Mr. Hetman.

Yes, thank you very much, President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 6th omnibus is an important step towards European simplification of provisions and rules,

but at the same time we have to take, we have to regard this as the stage, not the.

Of the process and we should not forget that apparently there are still very many regulatory obligations which accumulate which make life more expensive for entrepreneurs.

So it's not just specific simplification here and there,

but we need a broader simplification which has a true impact on European legislation, the competitiveness of European industry.

If we want to keep strategic manufacturing capacity in Europe, then we have to maintain.

The appropriate level of ETS without payment for sensitive sectors,

so they're competitive with other areas around the world like the chemical sector.

The chemical industry is the foundation of very many branches of industry,

sectors of industry, agriculture, right to defense, and weakening of the chemistry industry.

Means not only less money being invested but dependence on imports from outside.

European as a result of the omnibus, the European manufacturers are going to have a real opportunity to retain their products, invest and innovate. You have a blue card from Mr. Makarczyk from ECR Group. Do you accept it? My next speaker is Mr.

Makarczyk because we open now the catch the eye time. Mr.

Protar didn't want to take my blue card,

so now I'll air my concerns and doubts.

The European chemical industry is extremely important for very many branches of industry.

Our companies are facing competitive, not because of the quality of products or high energy costs.

Excess red tape, but also because European legislation and rules are far too complicated.

If we take a look at the whole chemical industry procedure and the requirements, obviously we want lower costs,

more predictable laws, and something that is of concern to me during the debate.

We know that from Asia, from China, very many chemical products and cosmetic products come into the European Union,

and they do not meet the requirements and standards, and this is a question for the Commission. Why does this happen?

If you take a look at countries like Poland, very many SMEs form the backbone of our economy, and we need a real,

a real industrial deal, less bureaucracy and red tape, lower costs so that we can produce and compete around the world.

Thank you very much, dear colleague, my friend Mr. Tikkanen, C 210. Mr.

My How many Chinese bat diseases are we still going to treat in this House with Chinese medicine?

The largest part, as much as 70 to 90% of critical raw materials for medicines,

are imported from Asia, particularly from China.

Many of the affordable basic medicines, such as antibiotics and painkillers,

arrive in Europe as finished products, mainly from India.

The biggest challenge of this dependency on Asia is not the quality of the medicines,

but the vulnerability to medicine shortages if factory production or logistics are disrupted for one reason or another.

Europe has long been moving its production out of Europe.

This development is only being further accelerated by constantly changing nonsensical regulation and bureaucracy.

We in Europe cannot rely on the availability of medicines from China or India at the moment when biological weapons escape from a Chinese laboratory.

Why is this threat not being taken seriously in Europe? Thank you. Thank you, distinguished Members of the European Parliament.

Way too often we are discussing how to simplify legal acts in the European Parliament. Yesterday, a colleague brought two legal acts. One of them was supposedly simplified. Which amounted to 5000 pages.

Another one, which is not simplified, amounted to 35,000 pages, and they needed a bodyguard to help them carry these documents,

and they contained about 30 references to various other acts which have been simplified,

and the business is supposed to abide by all these requirements. How can they do that? Please answer my question.

I had a chance to experience myself how things work.

When I had invited a group of visitors, they were being vetted by one institution.

Now they are being vetted by three institutions.

People are joking that when they come here next time, their weight will be checked.

My last speaker in this part of the debate is Mr. Nikolaou-Alavanos, seat 811.

Mr This, package on chemical products has been ordered and has been tailored to the needs of a big monopolies and lobbies in order to,

further water down our legislation and in the supply chain,

in order to be in a better position to compete against, Asia.

So they want faster procedures with no safeguards,

which might lead to dangerous compounds leaking out.

And also to conceal significant data in the name of IPR rights.

So we see that public health is again sacrificed for the benefit of a few.

We are disregarding the needs of the people, but in order to remedy that,

we need to have monopolies loose in order for workers to win. Dear Commissioner, it's your chance now.