MEPs voted in favour of the European Protein Strategy presented today (Thursday, October 19) in the European Parliament.

It was adopted on a vote of 305 to 129, with+ 69 abstentions.

The strategy calls for a higher diversity of food and feed supply chains and an increase in EU production.

It is based on a report from the committee, which was adopted in late September, on a vote of 33 to nine, with three abstentions.

Agriculture committee MEPs agreed that the EU must reduce its dependence on imports of protein crops from other countries.

Only 29% of the high-protein feedstock needed to balance animal feed originates from the EU, which makes the EU heavily dependent on imports of high-protein plant content from third countries.

The majority of MEPs voted in agreement that EU farmers must be supported in order to produce protein crops and to create more self-sufficiency in Europe.

European Protein Strategy

According to MEPs who voted in favour of the strategy, a sustainable plant protein production increases the circularity in the food and feed value chains and can have benefits for the climate.

They have called on member states to consider introducing eco-schemes for legumes and grasslands, and create dedicated protein plant funds.

MEPs added that the commission should consider the possibility of allowing protein-rich food crops to be grown on set-aside land.

MEPs have also called on the commission to help farmers convert their crops to attractive products for food and feed by increasing crop resilience, protein yields and protein quality.

Under the strategy, MEPs called for more research and development into the production and the safety of proteins in the EU and their impact.

EP rapporteur Emma Wiesner said: “To strengthen Europe’s food security, we need to diversify and boost our protein production.

“The European Protein Strategy aims to increase the EU production of plant-based proteins, and to diversify our protein sources. Its focus is on research and innovation taking into account national plans, practices, individual needs and agronomical circumstances.”