Deutsch
English
FrançaisSub menu: Home
Home / Index of Authors
Kafsack, Hendrik
Subscribe to receive the texts of "Kafsack, Hendrik" as RSS feeds
5 articles of this author have been cited in the European Press Review so far.
EU allows free choice on genetic engineering
The EU states may in future decide for themselves whether they want to grow genetically modified crops, which have been given the go-ahead by the EU. This is good for competition, writes the conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "The food agency Efsa checks the product and finds it harmless. The European Commission proposes its authorisation. The states mull it over. ... It never comes to a clear vote, and the authorisation is delayed. Then at some point the Commission decides to take matters into its own hands and authorises it. Until that happens years - or even decades - can pass, as with the Amflora potato. In the end everyone loses, the opponents of genetic engineering as well as the companies concerned. ... For that reason the path the EU Parliament is now taking is the right one ... even if it contradicts the idea of the Single Market. So Austria or Germany can delight in their landscapes free of genetically engineered crops without restricting the development of the Spaniards, who are interested in and open to a quick authorisation for new organisms. This gives competition a chance."
» more information (external link, German)
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Environmental Policy, » Agriculture, » Europe
Union hides its costs
The tax revenues the EU Commission has called for are aimed only at covering up how much the EU costs individual member states, writes the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "Right now everyone can see exactly how much money each state transfers to the EU, and how much it gets back. Germany for instance contributes eight billion euros more than it receives. So citizens know what the EU 'costs' them. This puts the Commission under pressure. It has to explain why the EU is worth the money it takes. And because it has trouble doing this - also because of its antiquated budget structure - it is now trying to avoid the whole discussion by securing a direct income for itself. Not only is this unworthy of the Commission, it is also undemocratic. As long as the EU remains an alliance of states with limited democratic legitimation it should be left to the member states to rule on how it is financed. This means that the taxpayer can decide how much he's willing to pay for the EU - and how much he's not."
» full article (external link, German)
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Europe
Germany publishes list of EU farm subsidies
On Tuesday Germany was the last EU member state to publish a list of recipients of EU agricultural subsidies. The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wonders why some German farmers had reservations about the publication: "Why are farmers so worried by the fact that from now on with just two clicks everyone can see on the Internet how much money they receive in EU subsidies? Certainly they can explain why they need these EU billions, as they say. After all, the 300 euros per hectare are meant as compensation for their having to meet higher environmental and animal protection standards than the rest of the world. ... Or could it be that they are afraid that one look at the Internet will make clear to everyone what the experts already know: that a large part of the money doesn't go to small farmers, but to large agricultural enterprises. Certainly, there are small ecological farmers who perhaps quite rightly receive taxpayers' money. That is open to discussion - but only once we know where the money from Brussels goes in the first place."
» full article (external link, German)
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Corporations, » Agriculture, » Economic Policy, » Germany, » Europe
EU subsidies in Africa?
EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso wants to use a development fund to channel a billion euros in unused farm subsidies from the EU budget to African farmers. The daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung criticises this proposal. "Barroso's conduct does not throw a good light on the Commission. Obviously this authority regards the European Union's budget as its own private budget. Instead of striving to make the Community cut its costs and return unused funds to the member states, it is thinking of ways to spend them. ... One can always find a good cause. ... But experience has taught us that the member states must impose tight limits on the Commission's urge to set up new programmes, take over new powers and spend money. Otherwise there is the danger that the authority undermines the right of the member states to stipulate the EU budget. So the first task in hand is to defend a well-founded principle."
» full article (external link, German)
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Agriculture, » Africa, » Europe
No need for farming subsidies?
Tomorrow, Mariann Fischer Boel, the EU's Agriculture Commissioner, will present her proposals for a "common agricultural policy". Hendrik Kafsack comments: "Boel has failed to address the crucial question of whether it's at all legitimate for the EU to continue to spend 50 billion euros in taxpayers' money on agricultural subsidies year after year. This question was justified even at times when prices were lower. After all, the danger that the community could starve, which was the reason the subsidies were created in the first place, no longer exists. It's even more justified now that prices for agricultural products are rising and budgets are getting tighter. More and more farmers can live without subsidies. And if the EU wants to help small-scale organic farmers it can do so for a fraction of the current budget. It could invest the rest of the money in research or - better still - refund the taxpayers."
» to the homepage (external link, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Economic Policy, » Europe
© 2005-2012