Source: Government of Sweden
On Friday 13 June Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson received Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh for bilateral talks at Rosenbad. During the official visit, Sweden and Vietnam entered into a bilateral sectorial strategic partnership aimed at advancing cooperation in science, technology, innovation and digital transformation.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer
Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, introduced the NNSA Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2025 to bolster America’s nuclear enterprise.
The legislation would empower the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to prioritize modernizing America’s nuclear infrastructure by following through on the steps outlined in its
Enterprise Blueprint report.“Restoring peace through strength and keeping the homeland safe means maintaining a credible, modernized nuclear deterrent. We cannot meet the deterrence requirements of the future unless we recapitalize failing facilities and infrastructure dating back to the Manhattan Project. My NNSA Infrastructure Improvements Act empowers the National Nuclear Security Administration to build upon the work they’ve done, and give Congress actionable information so that we responsibly plan for and fund the specialized facilities that help design, produce, and store the weapons needed to keep America safe,” said Fischer.Background:Last year, the NNSA released its Enterprise Blueprint report, which outlined a 25-year roadmap to ensure that its recapitalization strategy for specialized production facilities and science and technology infrastructure is aligned with its weapons production requirements.
The NNSA Infrastructure Improvements Act would require the NNSA to continuously update its Enterprise Blueprint and give Congress actionable information to inform future policy and funding decisions.
Click here to read the text of the bill.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)
Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) today issued the following statement after Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and Commissioner of the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service Michael Peters announced plans to relocate the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) out of the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building in Washington, D.C. and into the headquarters of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Alexandria, Virginia:
“The National Science Foundation is one of the crown jewels of the U.S. government, with an incredibly successful record of driving innovation and scientific breakthroughs that are essential to America’s economy, security, and global leadership. The public servants who power this essential mission must have a safe, secure, and well-maintained workplace that allows them to effectively serve the public – and our community remains the ideal location.
“I believe in HUD’s mission and agree that HUD employees need a facility that provides the safe environment they deserve and reflects the value of their service. That said, the best way to demonstrate the value of HUD staff would be to halt ongoing attempts to lay them off. As a proud Alexandrian, I am always happy to welcome federal agencies into our community, but this proposed move raises serious concerns about the future of NSF, the over 1,800 employees who work in the building, and the broader integrity of American science.
“NSF thrives in and because of our region’s robust science and technology environment that boasts exceptional talent and policy expertise, with impacts that reach far beyond our region. NSF funds a quarter of all scientific research across the country, supporting research in every state that is deeply embedded in local economies. However, this relocation comes at a time when, at President Trump’s direction, NSF is reeling from mass firings of staff and clumsy grant cancellations and freezes that harm our national interests. Harming NSF’s work will directly harm people across this country. I will continue to do all I can to protect NSF’s legacy of scientific advancement, support its incredible staff, and ensure they have the resources they need with a minimum of disruption. That means its headquarters must remain in our community, where it belongs.”
Beyer serves the Northern Virginia district that is home to the National Science Foundation (NSF) headquarters at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria. He previously served on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Washington (June 25, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) today celebrated the unanimous passage of their Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) through the Commerce Committee. The legislation would update online data privacy rules for the 21st century and ensure children and teenagers are protected online.
“We are proud of the momentum and broad support that our commonsense Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act is gaining from industry, advocates, and our own Senate colleagues,” said Senators Markey and Cassidy. “Today’s unanimous vote is further evidence of the broad, bipartisan commitment to protecting children and teens online. As our young people continue to face a devastating youth mental health crisis, Congress must pass COPPA 2.0 and implement these overdue safeguards for children and teens.”
Specifically, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act would:
Ban targeted advertising to children and teens;
Create an “Eraser Button” by requiring companies to permit users to delete personal information collected from a child or teen;
Establish data minimization rules to prohibit the excessive collection of children and teens’ data;
Revise COPPA’s “actual knowledge” standard to close the loophole that allows platforms to ignore kids and teens on their site; and
Build on COPPA by prohibiting internet companies from collecting personal information from users who are 13 to 16 years old without their consent.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
06.25.25
NPR and PBS Are More Than Just “Tiny Desk” and “Daniel Tiger” — They Are Critical to Public Safety
14 stations in WA at risk of losing funding if Senate passes administration’s rescissions package
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a Snapshot Report that highlights data on public broadcasters across the United States and broadcasters’ role in responding to emergencies and public safety events. In rural areas, public broadcasters may be the sole source of information during emergencies, leaving them disproportionately impacted by federal funding cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
“Public television and radio aren’t just for quality children’s television and unique radio content,” said Sen. Cantwell. “For millions of Americans, these stations are often their only source of emergency information during weather disasters. Earlier this month, House Republicans approved President Trump’s rescission request clawing back $1.1 billion in Congressionally-approved funding for public broadcasting. This report shows that if Senate Republicans allow this devastating cut to pass the Senate, nearly 13 million Americans could be left without access to their public media stations and the life-saving emergency alerts or information they need. As people prepare for potential hurricanes, wildfires, and other extreme weather events, we should not be gutting our support for public media.”
The report included several key findings:
The operations of 79 public radio and 33 TV stations across 34 states and territories are considered vulnerable to federal funding cuts.
Nearly 13 million Americans live in communities under threat of losing their local public broadcast stations. What’s worse, these stations serve large swaths of the Western, Midwestern, and Southeastern United States at risk of wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other public safety emergencies. This double threat casts uncertainty on the ability of these stations to disseminate emergency alerts and information to residents when they need it most.
More than 70 percent of federal funding goes directly to local public broadcasters for content, interconnection, and support services. It would cost local public broadcasters more than double the CPB’s current contribution to replace these critical services through alternative public or private means.
Support through the CPB is critical for many local stations, with the most vulnerable in rural and remote communities. Public radio and television stations serve as the primary—often sole—source of local news, educational content, and emergency alerts. These stations rely heavily on federal funding, with some depending on it for over 70 percent of their budgets. Some rural areas depend on their local public media station as their only source of information in emergencies.
KDNA-AM, which has a studio in Granger, WA, and serves the surrounding area, is reliant on federal CPB grants for a significant portion of its operating budget. KDNA serves an area that is at a high risk of wildfires, including the city of Yakima, with a population of over 90,000. KDNA plays a critical role in responding to emergencies by providing local news and information. Without continued federal funding, KDNA and other public broadcasters will have to find alternative funding sources or risk being unable to provide their essential public safety services.
In severe storm and wildfire situations that knock out a community’s power supply, TVs broadcasting news on the path of an incoming tornado may go dark due to power outages, and cell phones may lose service, leaving families with only local public radio broadcasts delivered to battery-powered, hand-crank, or car radios. Without local broadcasting, families in rural areas may not receive critical alerts in time to get to safety.
On June 3, President Trump submitted a rescission request to Congress for the CPB’s FY 2026 and 2027 funding, seeking to claw back nearly $1.1 billion in Congressionally-approved funding. On June 12, the House approved the President’s rescission request, and it is now before the Senate. If passed by the Senate, these cuts may leave millions of Americans without access to lifesaving alerts and emergency information.
In Washington state, funding for 14 public broadcasting stations is at risk under the House-passed rescissions package now being considered by the Senate.
In May, Sen. Cantwell joined Rick Steves to blast the Trump Administration for its assault on the CPB.
See the impacted areas below and to access the full report, please click HERE.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
[embedded content]
Click here or on the image above to watch Senator Capito’s questions.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, questioned Attorney General Pam Bondi at a hearing to review the president’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for the U.S. Department of Justice.
HIGHLIGHTS:
ON THE ATF’S NATIONAL TRACING CENTER IN MARTINSBURG:
SENATOR CAPITO: “I wanted to point out the ATF’s National Tracing Center, which is in West Virginia, is the only one of its kind to trace U.S. and foreign manufactured firearms. The facility provides critical information that helps solve crimes, detect trafficking, and track the movement of crime-related firearms. In 2024, that National Tracing Center processed more than 600,000 requests. I just want to make certain that in the budget there is enough…to meet the demands, and that these critical services can be sustained with the budget request you’ve made.”
ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI: “Senator, our budget continues to fully fund the National Tracing Center. I will personally make sure that that is funded. It will continue to be operated by ATF, as well, and it does such important work… They do amazing work. I’ve seen the work they do firsthand. And I would also—in all my spare time—I would also love to visit that center. I really want to visit that center and see what we can do also to enhance it and work with you on that. It’s so important. You know, these are issues that cross party lines. This is what every American in our country we should be working together on… You have been a true advocate for it for your state.”
ON THE HAZELTON PRISON:
SENATOR CAPITO: “Hazelton…is a very large prison with over 3,000 inmates. They’ve had some issues out there, big issues out there. Allegations, with staff shortages, gross mismanagement, abuse, coverups, falsifying documents. I’m sure you’re tracking these issues. I do want to compliment the president on his appointment of William Marshall, a West Virginian, former state trooper…he’s going to do a fantastic job. So, thank you for bringing in such a strong advocate, he’s already been very responsive to us on Hazelton, which has had chronic issues throughout the last several years, regardless of what administration it’s been. I wanted to put that on your radar.”
ON THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT:
SENATOR CAPTIO: “I will say, I’ve been a big supporter of the Violence Against Women Act. I am proud of the work that we’ve championed here on the Appropriations Committee for this. It’s really sad when you think of what happens in families sometimes and the proliferation of violence is extremely concerning to me. I’ve worked in this area for a long time, so I just wanted to let you know my passion in this area.”
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
Published: 06.25.2025
Bill Now Advances to Full Senate
WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed U.S. Senator Gary Peters’(MI) bipartisan bill to strengthen commercial space policy and promote industry competitiveness. Peters’ bipartisan legislation – which he reintroduced with U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) – would establish a Commercial Space Activity Advisory Committee within the Office of Space Commerce. The bill would enable the advisory committee, made up of representatives with extensive experience in the commercial space industry from a variety of fields including space policy, engineering, and research, to share important insights into non-governmental space activity to help inform and shape federal policy and programs. The legislation now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
“The importance of the commercial space sector will only continue to grow as it plays a larger role in shaping the future of space exploration,” said Senator Peters. “I’m proud to lead this bipartisan legislation to provide space industry leaders in Michigan and across the U.S. with a chance to shape federal space policy and provide insight into how to stay competitive on a global scale. I’m going to continue working with my colleagues to see it pass the Senate.”
The Commercial Space Activity Advisory Committee would be comprised of 15 members who make recommendations on various priorities, including:
Identifying challenges relating to international obligations and export controls that affect the commercial space sector.
Addressing the need to access adequate, predictable, and reliable radio frequency spectrum.
Reviewing best practices for U.S. entities to avoid harmful environmental impacts to both earth and space.
Providing recommendations on matters related to space sector development and other activities the advisory committee considers necessary.
Source: US Geological Survey
A new monograph tackles these questions head-on, distilling years of scientific research at China Camp State Park in Marin County, California, into a clear, decision-relevant summary. The synthesis is the product of a collaborative process involving resource managers, restoration practitioners, and scientists convened through a National Estuarine Research Reserve Science Collaborative project. The site, located on San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Estuary, is one of the last remaining salt marshes in the region that has remained largely untouched by human development.
The findings, drawn from a range of field studies, tell a complex and variable story of sediment movement. One major takeaway: shallow areas of the bay serve as an important—though inconsistent—source of sediment for the marsh. Sediment is delivered across the bay-marsh boundary primarily during flood tides and through wave action, in addition to transport through tidal creeks. In some cases, creeks may even export sediment instead of importing it.
The monograph also highlights the nuanced role of marsh vegetation. Plant species and seasonal growth cycles significantly affect how much sediment is trapped and retained. Denser vegetation in spring and summer, for instance, can slow water flow and promote sediment deposition—but this effect varies widely by plant type and inundation level.
As sea-level rise and human alterations continue to reshape estuaries, these insights are particularly important for assessing tidal marsh resilience. Sediment management is a key factor in whether tidal marshes can survive future climate conditions. For land managers and restoration practitioners, the study offers actionable information for planning sediment interventions—such as enhancing natural sediment delivery or restoring marsh-edge processes.
China Camp’s relatively unaltered condition makes it a valuable reference point, but researchers emphasize that broader studies across different marsh types are essential. Every estuary has its own sediment-flux dynamics; understanding that variability is crucial for protecting these ecosystems.
Read the study, Marsh Sediment in Translation: A Review of Sediment Transport Across a Natural Tidal Salt Marsh in Northern San Francisco Bay, in San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11) and Diana Harshbarger (TN-01) reintroduced the bipartisan Prescription Information Modernization Act, legislation designed to update how prescribing information (PI) is distributed to pharmacists and physicians. This long-overdue reform would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize a proposed rule permitting drug manufacturers to send prescribing information electronically instead of on printed paper — a change that would improve patient safety and reduce waste.
“I’m focused on improving our healthcare system to ensure healthcare providers are able to provide the best possible care to patients,” said Rep. Sherrill. “Under outdated rules, providers are prohibited from receiving prescribing information for medications digitally. This legislation would finally modernize our system, allowing pharmacists to access real-time updates on prescription medications that will ensure they can dispense medicines to patients safely while reducing waste at the same time.”
“Pharmacists and physicians deserve timely, accurate data when making decisions that impact patient health, not pages of printed material that often arrive late and are immediately discarded,” said Rep. Harshbarger. “This bipartisan bill is a practical update that empowers healthcare professionals with real-time digital access, cuts waste, and ensures patients are receiving the most up-to-date information. Thank you to my colleague, Representative Sherrill for working with me to bring prescribing information into the 21st century.”
Currently, prescribing information — detailed technical documents intended for healthcare providers, not patients — must be printed and distributed on paper. These documents average 45 pages per prescription and are often bulky, outdated, and discarded soon after arrival. This outdated system, established in 1962, creates significant waste and environmental harm, with roughly 90 billion sheets of paper printed annually to comply with the mandate.
In 2014, the FDA proposed a rule to allow electronic distribution of prescribing information, but Congress has blocked the rule’s finalization through appropriations riders, forcing providers to continue receiving paper copies that are often outdated as it takes up to 8 to 12 months from printing to shipment of the information. This legislation would give providers the choice of how they receive prescribing information and allow them to opt for digital delivery that offers real-time updates — improving patient care and reducing environmental waste.
This legislation has drawn support from leading pharmacy and healthcare advocacy organizations, including the Alliance to Modernize Prescribing Information (AMPI) and the following groups: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), Allergy & Asthma Network, American Pharmacists Association, AmGen, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Association for Accessible Medicines, Beyond Type 1, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BioNJ, BioUtah, Boomer Esiason Foundation, Environmental Paper Network, Georgia Bio, Healthcare Distribution Alliance, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, LUNGevity Foundation, Lupin, Maryland Tech Council, MassBio, McKesson, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Consumers League, National Grange, NewYorkBIO, North Carolina Biosciences Organization, Texas Healthcare and Biosciences Institute, and Zero Cancer.
Additional sponsors of this legislation include Reps. David Valadao (R-CA), Don Davis (D-NC), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Scott Peters (D-CA), Julia Letlow (R-LA), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Steve Womack (R-AR), and Paul Tonko (D-NY).
###
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. cyber officials and private experts are warning that Iran and Iran-linked groups may try to target the U.S. with a range of cyberattacks that could cause serious damage and disruption to private and public sector interests. In the wake of U.S. airstrikes on Iran, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin through the National Terrorism Advisory System, which read: “Low-level cyber attacks against U.S. networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against U.S. networks.”
In addition to these warnings, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is urging the Trump Administration to take action to bolster the nation’s cyber defenses and assist American industries and municipalities that may be targeted for attacks.
“As sophisticated cyber threats mount, we should be surging resources and reinforcements to America’s cyber defenses. We’ve got to secure our infrastructure and protect critical systems. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has undermined the capacity and capabilities of our country’s most critical cybersecurity agencies,” said Senator Reed.
Reed warns that the Trump Administration’s partisan efforts to purge the federal workforce and slash the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — America’s primary cyber agency — is putting U.S. national security at risk. CISA is the frontline federal agency in charge of defending federal networks, state and local governments, and critical infrastructure against cyber threats. CISA’s mission includes ransomware defense, supply chain resilience, and public-private coordination.
The Trump Administration has targeted CISA for downsizing, already forcing out over 1,000 CISA employees – roughly one-third of CISA’s workforce. The drastic staff reductions coupled with proposed future budget cuts jeopardize America’s ability to effectively repel, thwart, and deter cyberattacks; defend federal networks; and support critical infrastructure operators.
Reed stated: “As the cyber threat level is rising from Iran, affiliated hacktivists, and other adversaries, the Trump Administration is gutting CISA and taking down our best defenses, leaving America dangerously exposed to cyberattacks. The Trump Administration must stop undermining the capacity of America’s cyber defense agency. I urge the Trump Administration to take immediate action to rehire technical cyber talent, restore CISA funding, and reinstate key cyber defense programs immediately. We need to ramp up in the weeks and months ahead and be vigilant in defending against offensive cyber operations by Iran or their partners.”
The Trump Administration is seeking to reduce CISA’s budget by over $490 million – reducing the agency’s operational funding obligations from $2.38 billion to $1.96 billion. This includes dismantling and eliminating several key programs entirely, such as the agency’s Election Security Program and the innovative Cyber Safety Review Board.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is targeting other key U.S. cyber defense assets for major budget cuts, including:
Beyond CISA and domestic cyber defenses, President Trump abruptly fired the previous director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and head of U.S. Cyber Command, General Timothy Haugh, and his top deputy, without explanation this April, following a meeting with right-wing activist Laura Loomer at the White House. With support from U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Army Lt. General Richard Angle was then announced as the nominee to be the successor for the job. However, the White House then opted not to move forward with Lt. General Angle’s nomination, without public explanation.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
ARCHBOLD, Ohio, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO), announces the appointment of Ahmed Alomari to the Board of Directors of both the Company and the Bank. Mr. Alomari was appointed by the F&M Board of Directors on June 24, 2025, at the monthly board meeting.
Mr. Alomari is widely recognized for his expertise in Oracle database performance and enterprise systems architecture. He founded Cybernoor in 2007 and remained CEO until it was acquired in 2021 by Buchanan Technologies [Cybernoor Info]. As part of the acquisition, Alomari became the Executive Vice President for Buchanan Technologies, overseeing the company’s database and application operations [Buchanan Technologies Appoints Ahmed Alomari as Executive VP].
“Ahmed brings a deep level of technical expertise and a strong track record of innovation and strategic insight,” said Lars Eller, President and CEO of F&M Bank. “His knowledge of enterprise systems and data performance will be a valuable asset as we continue to enhance our digital capabilities and technology infrastructure.”
Mr. Alomari holds a degree in Computer Science from the University of Michigan’s School of Engineering.
About F&M Bank
F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.
Safe harbor statement
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.
| Company Contact: | Investor and Media Contact: |
| Lars B. Eller President and Chief Executive Officer Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (419) 446-2501 leller@fm.bank |
Andrew M. Berger Managing Director SM Berger & Company, Inc. (216) 464-6400 andrew@smberger.com |
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/81637346-a2e6-4544-b7ff-fe65be09b5e1
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
ARCHBOLD, Ohio, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO), announces the appointment of Ahmed Alomari to the Board of Directors of both the Company and the Bank. Mr. Alomari was appointed by the F&M Board of Directors on June 24, 2025, at the monthly board meeting.
Mr. Alomari is widely recognized for his expertise in Oracle database performance and enterprise systems architecture. He founded Cybernoor in 2007 and remained CEO until it was acquired in 2021 by Buchanan Technologies [Cybernoor Info]. As part of the acquisition, Alomari became the Executive Vice President for Buchanan Technologies, overseeing the company’s database and application operations [Buchanan Technologies Appoints Ahmed Alomari as Executive VP].
“Ahmed brings a deep level of technical expertise and a strong track record of innovation and strategic insight,” said Lars Eller, President and CEO of F&M Bank. “His knowledge of enterprise systems and data performance will be a valuable asset as we continue to enhance our digital capabilities and technology infrastructure.”
Mr. Alomari holds a degree in Computer Science from the University of Michigan’s School of Engineering.
About F&M Bank
F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.
Safe harbor statement
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.
| Company Contact: | Investor and Media Contact: |
| Lars B. Eller President and Chief Executive Officer Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (419) 446-2501 leller@fm.bank |
Andrew M. Berger Managing Director SM Berger & Company, Inc. (216) 464-6400 andrew@smberger.com |
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/81637346-a2e6-4544-b7ff-fe65be09b5e1
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
ARCHBOLD, Ohio, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO), announces the appointment of Ahmed Alomari to the Board of Directors of both the Company and the Bank. Mr. Alomari was appointed by the F&M Board of Directors on June 24, 2025, at the monthly board meeting.
Mr. Alomari is widely recognized for his expertise in Oracle database performance and enterprise systems architecture. He founded Cybernoor in 2007 and remained CEO until it was acquired in 2021 by Buchanan Technologies [Cybernoor Info]. As part of the acquisition, Alomari became the Executive Vice President for Buchanan Technologies, overseeing the company’s database and application operations [Buchanan Technologies Appoints Ahmed Alomari as Executive VP].
“Ahmed brings a deep level of technical expertise and a strong track record of innovation and strategic insight,” said Lars Eller, President and CEO of F&M Bank. “His knowledge of enterprise systems and data performance will be a valuable asset as we continue to enhance our digital capabilities and technology infrastructure.”
Mr. Alomari holds a degree in Computer Science from the University of Michigan’s School of Engineering.
About F&M Bank
F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.
Safe harbor statement
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.
| Company Contact: | Investor and Media Contact: |
| Lars B. Eller President and Chief Executive Officer Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (419) 446-2501 leller@fm.bank |
Andrew M. Berger Managing Director SM Berger & Company, Inc. (216) 464-6400 andrew@smberger.com |
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/81637346-a2e6-4544-b7ff-fe65be09b5e1
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
ARCHBOLD, Ohio, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO), announces the appointment of Ahmed Alomari to the Board of Directors of both the Company and the Bank. Mr. Alomari was appointed by the F&M Board of Directors on June 24, 2025, at the monthly board meeting.
Mr. Alomari is widely recognized for his expertise in Oracle database performance and enterprise systems architecture. He founded Cybernoor in 2007 and remained CEO until it was acquired in 2021 by Buchanan Technologies [Cybernoor Info]. As part of the acquisition, Alomari became the Executive Vice President for Buchanan Technologies, overseeing the company’s database and application operations [Buchanan Technologies Appoints Ahmed Alomari as Executive VP].
“Ahmed brings a deep level of technical expertise and a strong track record of innovation and strategic insight,” said Lars Eller, President and CEO of F&M Bank. “His knowledge of enterprise systems and data performance will be a valuable asset as we continue to enhance our digital capabilities and technology infrastructure.”
Mr. Alomari holds a degree in Computer Science from the University of Michigan’s School of Engineering.
About F&M Bank
F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.
Safe harbor statement
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.
| Company Contact: | Investor and Media Contact: |
| Lars B. Eller President and Chief Executive Officer Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (419) 446-2501 leller@fm.bank |
Andrew M. Berger Managing Director SM Berger & Company, Inc. (216) 464-6400 andrew@smberger.com |
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/81637346-a2e6-4544-b7ff-fe65be09b5e1
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hsiao-chun Hung, Senior Research Fellow, School of Culture, History & Language, Australian National University
In a new study published today in Science Advances, my colleagues and I have uncovered the earliest evidence of rice in the Pacific Islands – at an ancient cave site on Guam in the Mariana Islands of western Micronesia.
The domesticated rice was transported by the first islanders, who sailed 2,300 kilometres of open ocean from the Philippines about 3,500 years ago.
The discovery settles long-standing academic debates and satisfies decades of curiosity about the origins and lifestyles of early Pacific peoples.
The case of the Marianas, located more than 2,000km east of the Philippines and northeast of Indonesia, is especially intriguing. These islands were the first places in Remote Oceania reached by anyone, in this case inhabited for the first time by Malayo-Polynesian-speaking populations from islands in Southeast Asia.
For nearly two decades, scholars debated the timing and the overseas source of these first islanders, the ancestors of today’s Chamorro people. How did they come to Guam and the Marianas?
Archaeological research has confirmed settlement in the Mariana Islands 3,500 years ago at several sites in Guam, Tinian and Saipan.
In 2020, the first ancient DNA analysis from Guam confirmed what archaeology and linguistics had suggested: the early settlers came from central or northern Philippines. Further ancestral links trace them back to Taiwan, the homeland of both their language and their genetics.
Was this epic voyage intentional or accidental? What food source allowed these early seafarers to survive?
Today, Pacific islanders rely mostly on breadfruit, banana, coconut, taro and yams. Rice, though a staple food in ancient and modern Asian societies, is challenging to grow in the Pacific due to environmental constraints, including soil type, rainfall and terrain.
Rice was originally domesticated in central China about 9,000 years ago and was spread by Neolithic farming communities as they migrated to new regions. One of the most remarkable of these expansions began in coastal southern China, moved to Taiwan, and spread through the islands of Southeast Asia into the Pacific.
The migration laid the foundations of the Austronesian world, which today comprises nearly 400 million individuals dispersed across an expansive area stretching from Taiwan to New Zealand, and from Madagascar to Easter Island.
For more than a decade, we searched for evidence of early rice in open archaeological sites across the Mariana Islands, but found nothing conclusive.
This study marks the first clear evidence of ancient rice in the Pacific Islands. It also confirms renowned American linguist Robert Blust’s hypothesis that the earliest Chamorros brought cultivated plants with them, including rice.
Our research took us to Ritidian Beach Cave in Guam. To confirm what we found in the cave were rice remains, we used phytolith analysis. Phytoliths are microscopic silica structures formed in plant cells that persist long after the plant has decayed.
Once our initial results confirmed the presence of rice, a more detailed analysis revealed we had found the traces of rice husks preserved on the surfaces of ancient earthenware pottery.
Next, we used detailed microscopic analysis to figure out whether these husks had been mixed into the clay to keep it from cracking when it dried (a tempering technique commonly used by ancient potters) or had arrived by other means. We also analysed the sediment to rule out that the husks were deposited at the site later than the pottery.
Our findings showed the rice husks were not used for manufacturing the pottery. Rather, they came from a separate, deliberate activity using the finished pottery bowls.
The setting of the discovery – a beach cave – gives us another interpretive perspective.
In Chamorro traditions, caves are sacred places for important spiritual practices.
According to records of 1521 through 1602, the Chamorro people in the Marianas grew rice in limited amounts and consumed it only sparingly, reserved for special occasions and critical life events, such as the impending death of a loved one. Rice became more common after the intensive Spanish colonial period, after 1668.
In this context, the ancient islanders more likely used rice during ceremonial practices in or around caves, rather than as a staple food for daily cooking or agriculture.
This study provides strong evidence that the first long-distance ocean crossings into the Pacific were not accidental. People carefully planned the voyages. Early seafarers brought with them not only the tools of survival but also their symbolic and culturally meaningful plants, such as rice.
They were equipped, prepared and resolute, completing one of the most extraordinary voyages in the history of humanity.
Hsiao-chun Hung receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
– ref. Remote cave discovery shows ancient voyagers brought rice across 2,300km of Pacific Ocean – https://theconversation.com/remote-cave-discovery-shows-ancient-voyagers-brought-rice-across-2-300km-of-pacific-ocean-259667
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Spyros A. Sofos, Assistant Professor in Global Humanities, Simon Fraser University
Israel’s recent strikes on Iranian territory have been widely framed as an act of deterrence or yet another episode in a protracted regional rivalry.
Such interpretations overlook the deeper motivations behind Israel’s actions.
As a global humanities scholar who specializes in Middle Eastern politics, I believe the world is watching the convergence of a domestic political crisis and a profound strategic shift as Israel evolves into a more aggressive entity in a fragmented international order.
At the centre of Israel’s current strategic turn lies Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — a beleaguered leader fighting for political survival, but also considered a calculating, opportunistic operator with a particular vision of the Middle East.
At home, Netanyahu, confronting an unprecedented convergence of challenges — multiple corruption indictments, mass protests against what many consider a self-serving judicial overhaul and a fragile governing coalition — has leaned into military escalation as both a defensive reflex and a political instrument. He’s seemingly deploying it to both mute dissent at home and assert control abroad.
But Netanyahu’s ambitions appear to extend beyond his immediate political survival. He seems to be striving for a legacy-defining “1967 moment” — a transformative reordering of the regional landscape in the Middle East that sidelines the Palestinian issue and entrenches Israeli supremacy.
This dual imperative — domestic survival and amassing power in the region — likely shapes Netanyahu’s recent actions, including the strike on Iran, the expanded occupation of Syrian territory, the October 2024 attack on Lebanon and the ongoing assaults on Gaza and the West Bank.
By describing each military campaign as a reluctant necessity — forced upon him by Iran, Hamas or even his coalition hardliners — Netanyahu maintains public support as he consolidates power. His government has used war-time conditions to suppress public protest, push forward its radical constitutional agenda and advance his geopolitical vision.
The result is a volatile but calculated strategy that is likely to mark Netanyahu’s tenure, though with significant repercussions for regional stability.
While Netanyahu’s actions could serve his immediate political ends, they also reflect a longer-term shift in Israeli grand strategy. Following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, Israel intensified a long-standing pattern of pre-emptive strikes and campaigns to neutralize its adversaries. This strategy has been pursued at an unprecedented scale in Gaza, but often without a clearly articulated political endgame.
This pattern echoes a regional policy doctrine Netanyahu laid out in his 1993 book A Place Among the Nations when he asserted “the only peace that will endure in the region is the peace of deterrence.”
This policy advocates the projection of overwhelming Israeli power, the emasculation of regional challengers and efforts to radically reorder the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s doctrine, a more aggressive revision of Israel’s earlier pre-emptive security traditions, stands in sharp contrast to the approach pursued by the Oslo Accords-era leadership of the 1990s and 2000s — figures such as Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and later Ehud Barak.
They emphasized diplomacy over coercive leverage and perpetual confrontation. They sought genuine political settlements and a negotiated co-existence with Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states. This strategy — rooted in compromise and limited reconciliation — has now been decisively eclipsed by Netanyahu’s highly militarized approach and his vision for achieving strategic power in the Middle East.
This approach underpins all of Israel’s modern-day actions — from its reoccupation of parts of Lebanon to its growing military footprint in Syrian territory, the obliteration of Gaza, its aggression against Iran and the increasing calls for Iranian regime change from the current Israeli cabinet.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel’s expanding operations across its northern front. In Syria, Israel seized upon the post-Bashar al-Assad vacuum to entrench military control over at least 12 square kilometres of new terrain, constructing infrastructure and outposts far beyond prior ceasefire lines.
This had less to do with protecting minority populations or deterring Iranian proxies — as officials claimed — and more with establishing long-term buffer zones and projecting dominance into a fragile post-war Syria.
A similar pattern is evident in Lebanon. Following months of border escalation, Israel has sought not only to undermine Hezbollah’s capacity but to create no-go zones controlled by the Israeli military along the frontier. These operations reflect older strategic instincts but are now integrated in the ongoing process of Israel’s northern border redesign.
Finally, Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran reflects a doctrine to move beyond containment toward strategic dismantlement of the Iranian regime’s regional power and to erode its ability to control its own territory.
The escalation is the outcome of Israel’s pursuit of a favourable regional moment — the weakening of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” following the Abraham Accords of 2020 aimed at establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations — and months of war in Lebanon and Syria.
A constellation of domestic and international changes has enabled Israel’s transformation.
These include a shift in Israeli political culture encouraged by Netanyahu’s rejection of efforts to pursue some sort of regional co-existence and co-operation; the far right’s growing influence in government; and the ongoing disruption of the international order amid Donald Trump’s second presidency in the United States that gave Israel more room to manoeuvre.
This constellation has eroded the few constraints the liberal international order had in the past imposed on Israel’s pursuit of its regional policies amid an era of expansionism, permanent conflict and the aggressive management — not resolution — of the Palestinian issue.
Israel is now heading down the same path as Russia and Turkey, capitalizing on vast disparities in military and intelligence capabilities among regional powers to its advantage, disregarding international norms, undermining diplomacy and preferring transactional alliances instead of long-term peace processes.
The U.S. has facilitated this transformation. Former president Joe Biden and now Trump have made very little effort to constrain Netanyahu.
Trump’s “Gaza Riviera” plan, along with his isolationist rhetoric, have effectively left regional decision-making to Israel while he continues to underwrite Israeli military dominance and its use of overwhelming force to reshape its regional environment.
Read more:
Why Israel and the U.S. are sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran
Netanyahu’s reluctance to accept the current ceasefire as a definitive end to hostilities with Iran reveals his and his cabinet’s regional revisionist reflexes.
Broader regional destabilization lies ahead as Israel seeks to destroy threats with immense military power without any strategic foresight.
Spyros A. Sofos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. How Israel’s domestic crises and Netanyahu’s aim to project power are reshaping the Middle East – https://theconversation.com/how-israels-domestic-crises-and-netanyahus-aim-to-project-power-are-reshaping-the-middle-east-259359
Source: United Nations – Geneva
Aboubacar Sadikh Barry, the new Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, today presented his credentials to Tatiana Valovaya, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Prior to his appointment to Geneva, Mr. Barry had been serving as Senegal’s Ambassador to Ghana since 2018.
Mr. Barry served as Deputy Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva from 2013 to 2016. He served as Second, then First Counselor at the Permanent Mission of Senegal to the United Nations in New York from 2004 to 2010. He was Head of the United Nations Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal from 2001 to 2004.
Other high-level positions he has held within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs include Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Senegal in Washington D.C., United States, from 2016 to 2018; and Director of Consular Affairs from 2011 to 2013.
Mr. Barry has a certificate degree in diplomacy from the Senegal National School of Administration and a master’s degree in economics and management from the Cheikh Anta Diop University in Dakar, where he also obtained a bachelor’s degree in economic sciences. He is married with five children.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CR25.022E
Source: NASA
Students attending the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama, will have the chance to hear NASA astronauts aboard the International Space Station answer their prerecorded questions.
At 12:40 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 1, NASA astronauts Anne McClain, Jonny Kim, and Nichole Ayers will answer student questions. Ayers is a space camp alumna.
Watch the 20-minute Earth-to-space call on the NASA STEM YouTube Channel.
The U.S. Space and Rocket Center will host the downlink while celebrating the 65th anniversary of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. This event is open to the public.
Media interested in covering the event must RSVP by 5 p.m., Friday, June 27, to Pat Ammons at: 256-721-5429 or pat.ammons@spacecamp.com.
For nearly 25 years, astronauts have continuously lived and worked aboard the space station, testing technologies, performing science, and developing skills needed to explore farther from Earth. Astronauts aboard the orbiting laboratory communicate with NASA’s Mission Control Center in Houston 24 hours a day through SCaN’s (Space Communications and Navigation) Near Space Network.
Important research and technology investigations taking place aboard the space station benefit people on Earth and lay the groundwork for other agency missions. As part of NASA’s Artemis campaign, the agency will send astronauts to the Moon to prepare for future human exploration of Mars; inspiring Golden Age explorers and ensuring the United States continues to lead in space exploration and discovery.
See videos of astronauts aboard the space station at:
https://www.nasa.gov/stemonstation
-end-
Gerelle DodsonHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1600gerelle.q.dodson@nasa.gov
Sandra JonesJohnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111sandra.p.jones@nasa.gov
Source: NASA
Asteroids are rocky objects that orbit the Sun just like planets do. In fact, sometimes asteroids are called “minor planets.” These space rocks were left behind after our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago.
Asteroids are found in a wide range of sizes. For example, one small asteroid, 2015 TC25, has a diameter of about 6 feet – about the size of a small car – while the asteroid Vesta is nearly 330 miles in diameter, almost as wide as the U.S. state of Arizona. Some asteroids even have enough gravity to have one or two small moons of their own.
There are more than a million known asteroids. Many asteroids are given names. An organization called the International Astronomical Union is responsible for assigning names to objects like asteroids and comets.
Although all of these celestial bodies orbit the Sun, they are not the same. Unlike asteroids, which are rocky, comets are a mix of dust and ice. Meteors are small space rocks that get pulled close enough to enter Earth’s atmosphere, where they either burn up as a shooting star or land on the ground as a meteorite.
Different types of asteroids are composed of different mixes of materials. Most of them are made of chondrites, which are combinations of materials such as rocks and clay. These are called “C-type” asteroids. Some, called “S-type,” are made of stony materials, while “M-type” asteroids are composed of metallic elements.
Asteroids formed around the same time and in the same way as the planets in our solar system. A massive, dense cloud of gas and dust collapsed into a spinning disk, and the gravity in the disk’s center pulled more and more material toward it. Over time, these pieces repeatedly collided with each other, sometimes resulting in smaller fragments and other times clumping together, resulting in much bigger objects.
Objects with a lot of mass – like planets – produced enough gravity to pull themselves into spheres, but many smaller objects didn’t. These ended up becoming comets, small moons, and, yes, asteroids. Although some asteroids have a spherical shape, most have irregular shapes – sometimes oblong, bumpy, or jagged.
Most of the asteroids we know about are located in an area called the main asteroid belt, which is found in the space between Mars and Jupiter. But asteroids are found in other parts of the solar system, too.
Trojan asteroids orbit the Sun on the same orbital path as a planet. They’re found at two specific points on the planetary orbit called Lagrange points. At these points, the gravitational pull of the planet and the Sun are in balance, making these points gravity-neutral and stable. Many planets have been found to have Trojan asteroids, including Earth.
An asteroid’s location can also be influenced by the gravity of planets it passes and end up pushed or pulled onto a path that brings it close to Earth. When asteroids or comets are on an orbital path that comes within 30 million miles of Earth’s orbit, we call them near-Earth objects.
Yes! Throughout history, asteroids or pieces of asteroids have collided with Earth, our Moon, and the other planets, too. The effects of some of these impacts are still visible. For example, Chicxulub Crater was created 65 million years ago when a massive asteroid struck Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. The resulting cloud of dust and gas released into Earth’s atmosphere blocked sunlight, leading to a mass extinction that included the dinosaurs. More recently, in 2013, people in Chelyabinsk, Russia, witnessed an asteroid almost as wide as a tennis court explode in the atmosphere above them. That event produced a powerful shockwave that caused injuries and damaged structures.
This is why NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office keeps a watchful eye on near-Earth objects. The Planetary Defense team relies on telescopes and observatories on Earth and in space to detect and monitor objects like these that could stray too close to our planet.
The agency is working on planetary defense strategies to use if an asteroid is discovered to be heading our way. For example, NASA’s DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) mission in 2022 was a first-of-its-kind test: an uncrewed spacecraft with an autonomous targeting system intentionally flew into the asteroid Dimorphos, successfully changing its orbit.
NASA detects and tracks asteroids using telescopes on the ground and in space, radar observations, and computer modeling. The agency also has launched several robotic explorers to learn more about asteroids. Some missions study asteroids from above, such as the Psyche mission, launched in 2023 to study the asteroid Psyche beginning in 2029. Other missions have actually made physical contact with asteroids. For example, the DART mission mentioned above impacted an asteroid to change its orbit, and the OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification and Security – Regolith Explorer) spacecraft collected a sample of material from the surface of asteroid Bennu and delivered the sample to Earth in 2023 for scientists to study.
Want a career where you get to study asteroids? Here are some jobs at NASA that do just that:
Astronomer: These scientists observe and study planets, stars, and galaxies. Astronomers make discoveries that help us understand how the universe works and how it is changing. This job requires a strong educational background in science, math, and computer science.
Geologist: Asteroids are made of different types of rock, clay, or metallic materials. Geologists study the properties and composition of these materials to learn about the processes that have shaped Earth and other celestial bodies, like planets, moons, and asteroids.
Asteroid FactsGallery: What’s That Space Rock?Center for Near Earth Object StudiesPlanetary Defense at NASAAsteroid Watch: Keeping an Eye on Near-Earth Objects
Source: NASA
In addition to drilling rock core samples, the science team has been grinding its way into rocks to make sense of the scientific evidence hiding just below the surface.
On June 3, NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover ground down a portion of a rock surface, blew away the resulting debris, and then went to work studying its pristine interior with a suite of instruments designed to determine its mineralogic makeup and geologic origin. “Kenmore,” as nicknamed by the rover science team, is the 30th Martian rock that Perseverance has subjected to such in-depth scrutiny, beginning with drilling a two-inch-wide (5-centimeter-wide) abrasion patch.
“Kenmore was a weird, uncooperative rock,” said Perseverance’s deputy project scientist, Ken Farley from Caltech in Pasadena, California. “Visually, it looked fine — the sort of rock we could get a good abrasion on and perhaps, if the science was right, perform a sample collection. But during abrasion, it vibrated all over the place and small chunks broke off. Fortunately, we managed to get just far enough below the surface to move forward with an analysis.”
The science team wants to get below the weathered, dusty surface of Mars rocks to see important details about a rock’s composition and history. Grinding away an abrasion patch also creates a flat surface that enables Perseverance’s science instruments to get up close and personal with the rock.
Time to Grind
NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, each carried a diamond-dust-tipped grinder called the Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) that spun at 3,000 revolutions per minute as the rover’s robotic arm pushed it deeper into the rock. Two wire brushes then swept the resulting debris, or tailings, out of the way. The agency’s Curiosity rover carries a Dust Removal Tool, whose wire bristles sweep dust from the rock’s surface before the rover drills into the rock. Perseverance, meanwhile, relies on a purpose-built abrading bit, and it clears the tailings with a device that surpasses wire brushes: the gaseous Dust Removal Tool, or gDRT.
“We use Perseverance’s gDRT to fire a 12-pounds-per-square-inch (about 83 kilopascals) puff of nitrogen at the tailings and dust that cover a freshly abraded rock,” said Kyle Kaplan, a robotic engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “Five puffs per abrasion — one to vent the tanks and four to clear the abrasion. And gDRT has a long way to go. Since landing at Jezero Crater over four years ago, we’ve puffed 169 times. There are roughly 800 puffs remaining in the tank.” The gDRT offers a key advantage over a brushing approach: It avoids any terrestrial contaminants that might be on a brush from getting on the Martian rock being studied.
Having collected data on abraded surfaces more than 30 times, the rover team has in-situ science (studying something in its original place or position) collection pretty much down. After gDRT blows the tailings away, the rover’s WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) imager (which, like gDRT, is at the end of the rover’s arm) swoops in for close-up photos. Then, from its vantage point high on the rover’s mast, SuperCam fires thousands of individual pulses from its laser, each time using a spectrometer to determine the makeup of the plume of microscopic material liberated after every zap. SuperCam also employs a different spectrometer to analyze the visible and infrared light that bounces off the materials in the abraded area.
“SuperCam made observations in the abrasion patch and of the powdered tailings next to the patch,” said SuperCam team member and “Crater Rim” campaign science lead, Cathy Quantin-Nataf of the University of Lyon in France. “The tailings showed us that this rock contains clay minerals, which contain water as hydroxide molecules bound with iron and magnesium — relatively typical of ancient Mars clay minerals. The abrasion spectra gave us the chemical composition of the rock, showing enhancements in iron and magnesium.”
Later, the SHERLOC (Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics & Chemicals) and PIXL (Planetary Instrument for X-ray Lithochemistry) instruments took a crack at Kenmore, too. Along with supporting SuperCam’s discoveries that the rock contained clay, they detected feldspar (the mineral that makes much of the Moon brilliantly bright in sunlight). The PIXL instrument also detected a manganese hydroxide mineral in the abrasion — the first time this type of material has been identified during the mission.
With Kenmore data collection complete, the rover headed off to new territories to explore rocks — both cooperative and uncooperative — along the rim of Jezero Crater.
“One thing you learn early working on Mars rover missions is that not all Mars rocks are created equal,” said Farley. “The data we obtain now from rocks like Kenmore will help future missions so they don’t have to think about weird, uncooperative rocks. Instead, they’ll have a much better idea whether you can easily drive over it, sample it, separate the hydrogen and oxygen contained inside for fuel, or if it would be suitable to use as construction material for a habitat.”
Long-Haul Roving
On June 19 (the 1,540th Martian day, or sol, of the mission), Perseverance bested its previous record for distance traveled in a single autonomous drive, trekking 1,348 feet (411 meters). That’s about 210 feet (64 meters) more than its previous record, set on April 3, 2023 (Sol 753). While planners map out the rover’s general routes, Perseverance can cut down driving time between areas of scientific interest by using its self-driving system, AutoNav.
“Perseverance drove 4½ football fields and could have gone even farther, but that was where the science team wanted us to stop,” said Camden Miller, a rover driver for Perseverance at JPL. “And we absolutely nailed our stop target location. Every day operating on Mars, we learn more on how to get the most out of our rover. And what we learn today future Mars missions won’t have to learn tomorrow.”
News Media Contact
DC AgleJet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.818-393-9011agle@jpl.nasa.gov
Karen Fox / Molly WasserNASA Headquarters, Washington202-358-1600karen.c.fox@nasa.gov / molly.l.wasser@nasa.gov
2025-082
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olli Hellmann, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Waikato
The winter school holidays will mean families across Aotearoa New Zealand will be looking for indoor activities to entertain children. With millions of visitors each year, museums focused on the country’s history will inevitably play host to local and international visitors.
Museums tend to enjoy a high level of trust among the public. They’re widely seen as neutral, factual sources of historical knowledge.
But like all forms of storytelling, museums present the past in particular ways. They narrate events from a certain group’s or individual’s perspective and explain why events unfolded in the way they did.
In this respect, museums are not so different from historical films. Consider the different ways two recent movies – 1917 and the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front – narrate the first world war.
In 1917, the storyteller takes the British side, encouraging viewers to invest in the bravery and endurance of British soldiers. But All Quiet on the Western Front is narrated from a German perspective, inviting viewers to grieve for German soldiers as victims of a political system that glorified war.
Museum exhibitions tell stories in a similar way. Visitors should be asking not just what story is told, but why.
Spoiler alert: it often has to do with national identity. Museums tell particular stories of the past because these stories support a particular image of New Zealand as a nation.
At its core, every story has two basic ingredients: actors and events. To turn these into a compelling narrative, the storyteller connects the events into a plot, so they build on each other. The storyteller also transforms actors into characters by giving them particular traits — brave, selfish, wise, cruel and the like. Museums do this, too.
As you move through a museum exhibition, try asking yourself the following questions:
1. Which historical events are included — and which are left out?
Every story begins somewhere. Museums choose which events to include and which to leave out, shaping how visitors understand what happened and why.
Take Te Papa’s Gallipoli: The Scale of Our War exhibition. It opens with the landing at ANZAC Cove but skips over events in the lead-up to WWI — such as Britain’s earlier moves to seize Ottoman territories like Cyprus and Egypt.
Leaving these out helps frame Gallipoli as a noble – albeit tragic – “coming of age” for New Zealand. But in reality, ANZAC soldiers were fighting to support Britain’s imperial ambitions in the Middle East.
2. How are events organised into a plot?
Museums don’t just say “this happened, then that happened”. They link events into a larger plot — a chain of cause and effect that explains how one thing led to another. This can happen through text, but also through spatial layout, lighting, sound and other techniques that guide visitors through rising and falling moments of narrative tension.
Often, museums use familiar plot types to connect events. One common example is the quest narrative — a story in which heroes must navigate unknown terrain, and where mistakes are part of the journey and threaten to derail the mission. It’s a bit like The Lord of the Rings: a journey full of challenges, wrong turns and personal growth.
At Te Kōngahu Museum of Waitangi, Aotearoa New Zealand’s Treaty story is told using this quest structure. The Treaty is presented as something unique and unfamiliar and the British, confronted with this unknown, fall back on familiar colonial practices — the “mistake” that led to the New Zealand wars.
Because this misstep is treated as part of the learning curve typical of any quest, the exhibition avoids harder questions about this violent part of history, and instead preserves the image of Aotearoa New Zealand as fundamentally tolerant and respectful.
3. Who are the main actors in the story — and who is missing?
Every story needs protagonists, and whose perspective frames the story matters. In many smaller regional museums, history is still told almost entirely from the viewpoint of European settlers. But what about Māori experiences of colonisation? Or the histories of Chinese communities and other migrants who arrived in the 1800s?
By focusing narrowly on European settlers as the main actors, these museums present a one-sided view of the past and construct an image of New Zealand as a European nation — one that expects others to assimilate.
4. How are the main actors characterised — and how are we meant to feel about them?
It’s not surprising that museums portray some actors positively and others less so. What’s more revealing is how certain individuals are elevated as symbols of the nation and how museums invite us to form personal connections with them.
In Te Papa’s Gallipoli exhibition, visitors can open drawers and boxes containing soldiers’ personal belongings. This intimate activity encourages us to feel close to these figures — not just learning about them, but identifying with them as embodying national qualities: bravery, resilience and a commitment to peace.
Historical museum narratives aren’t necessarily inaccurate — but, much like historical movies, they are selective. They highlight certain events, actors and cause-and-effect chains to tell a particular kind of story. Often, that story supports a specific idea of what it means to be an Aotearoa New Zealander.
By reading museum exhibitions with a critical eye, visitors can better understand not just the past, but how storytelling shapes national identity in the present — and imagine how it might be shaped differently.
Olli Hellmann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Whose story is being told — and why? 4 questions museum visitors should ask themselves this school holidays – https://theconversation.com/whose-story-is-being-told-and-why-4-questions-museum-visitors-should-ask-themselves-this-school-holidays-259538
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI: Murray Calls for Kennedy to Reinstate Fired ACIP Members or Delay Meeting Until New Members Appropriately Vetted
Senator Murray, along with Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), authored the PREVENT Pandemics Act that made the CDC Director a Senate confirmed position for the first time starting this year
Dr. Monarez on ACIP members: “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings”
***WATCH: Murray’s questioning of Dr. Monarez***
Washington, D.C. – Today—during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the nomination for Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Senator Murray, senior member and former Chair of the Senate HELP Committee, questioned nominee Dr. Susan Monarez on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replacing them with 8 new unvetted members just two weeks ago, pressing Dr. Monarez on the need for the new ACIP members to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting today. Murray also raised alarm over Secretary Kennedy’s move to bring in Lyn Redwood, the leader of the anti-vaccine group founded by Secretary Kennedy, to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines at the ACIP meeting this week—furthering RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that the preservative used in vaccines causes autism. Senator Murray also pressed Dr. Monarez on the importance of ACIP in maintaining no-cost access to evidence-based vaccines for children and families, and how ACIP recommendation changes could force families to pay out of pocket for vaccines—or forgo vaccination.
Yesterday, Senator Murray called on Secretary Kennedy to reinstate the ACIP members he fired without cause, or delay this week’s meeting until the new members have been appropriately vetted. Earlier this month, Senator Murray held a press call with Dr. Helen Chu of Washington state, one of the 17 ACIP members abruptly fired by Secretary Kennedy, laying out how Secretary Kennedy’s purge of the Committee threatened public health and vaccine confidence.
Senator Murray was a vocal critic of President Trump’s first pick for CDC Director, Dave Weldon. The CDC Director is a Senate-confirmed position for the first time this year thanks to a provision in Senator Murray’s bipartisan PREVENT Pandemics Act, which she negotiated and passed with former Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in 2022.
[ACIP MEMBER QUALIFICATION]
Senator Murray began by questioning Dr. Monarez on the appointment process of members of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), as RFK Jr. appointed members with seemingly no vetting process, “Three weeks ago, Secretary Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of the ACIP. And then, he appointed 8 new, unvetted members—many of whom are known vaccine skeptics—and as we all know the Committee is starting today to vote on vaccine recommendations. As of last night, they’re down to just 7 members. I wanted to ask you, do you agree that any new ACIP members should have to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting?”
Dr. Monarez replied, “The members of the ACIP do need to go through a thorough ethics review before they are allowed to participate in those critical meetings.”
Senator Murray pressed, “So, if that ethics review process was not complete before the Committee met today—do you think any vaccine recommendations from this week’s meetings should be valid?”
“My understanding is that to convene the ACIP meetings, there needs to be a quorum of participants,” replied Dr. Monarez.
Senator Murray reiterated her question, “You just said they should through the ethics vetting before meeting, they are meeting today without that ethics review process. Should they make recommendations today? Should they be valid?”
Dr. Monarez answered, “I’m not familiar whether or not the members that are participating in the meeting this week have or have not gone through the ethics review necessary to allow them to participate in those meetings.”
“If it is known that they have not gone through the ethics process and they issue recommendations, would you accept them as valid?” asked Senator Murray.
“If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings,” said Dr. Monarez.
Senator Murray continued, “I would agree with that. And I know Chair Cassidy has expressed concerns about that as well. These affect millions of people, and it’s not just the members that I’m concerned about. Secretary Kennedy is bringing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists from his former organization into that crucial vaccine meeting. Lyn Redwood, who is from the Children’s Health Defense, is scheduled to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines, to further RFK’s debunked claims that it causes autism, and she cited a study that does not exist. And after that was pointed out, CDC uploaded a new presentation. But let me ask you, do you think it is acceptable for a known conspiracy theorist who cites made-up sources to be presenting at CDC’s ACIP meeting and advising on vaccine recommendations?”
Dr. Monarez replied, “I’m not familiar with the person you have identified. The ACIP is a public meeting and members of the public are in a position to be able to present what should be scientific and evidence-based information. And members of the ACIP should listen to that information and be able to evaluate the veracity of the data that is being discussed.”
“The CDC Director makes the decision on whether a vaccine should be recommended to the public and does not have to follow recommendations passed by ACIP. What will you do if the Committee votes to remove vaccines from the vaccine schedule—or to not approve new ones—in opposition to clear, established science?” Senator Murray asked.
“If I’m confirmed as a CDC Director, I will be an active listener and will be very interested in the discussions that take place at the ACIP meetings. I will be looking at how the ACIP members are able to evaluate this complex scientific information and the statistical analysis that goes into the risk benefit associated with that,” Dr. Monarez responded.
Senator Murray said, “I appreciate that long answer there, but I have to say, many of us are very deeply concerned about the recommendations because they impact millions of people as I said. But they also translate directly into which vaccines get covered by insurance—and which vaccines are then accessible to patients.”
[VACCINE COVERAGE]
Senator Murray then questioned Dr. Monarez on access to vaccines as RFK Jr. attempts to obstruct coverage for millions of Americans, “Secretary Kennedy has spread really blatant disinformation about vaccines, and undermined the established science by pretending families need to do their own research on vaccine safety. Secretary Kennedy recently decided to revoke COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, meaning that their insurance may now not cover the cost of their vaccines.”
“Do you think ‘leaving it up to the parents’ or the individual, if the ‘choice’ they are left with is to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get one vaccine that was previously free, is the right way to go here?” asked Senator Murray.
Dr. Monarez said, “I think we need to make sure that we are providing transparent and clear, effective communications about the benefits and the risks associated with vaccines so parents can make informed decision-making for themselves, their children, their families.”
Senator Murray concluded, “Well, it is hard to know if it’s informed if you have ACIP members who are listening to somebody who is a vaccine conspiracy theorist that has been debunked. And I just want to make this clear, when ACIP pulls its recommendation or refuses to recommend an evidence-based vaccine, a lot more kids and a lot more families will not get vaccinated. They will not be able to afford it. And that is the reality.”
_______________
Senator Murray forcefully opposed the nomination of notorious anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. to be Secretary of HHS, and she has long worked to combat vaccine skepticism and highlight the importance of scientific research and vaccines. Murray was also a leading voice against the nomination of Dr. Dave Weldon to lead CDC, repeatedly speaking up about her serious concerns with the nominee immediately after their meeting. In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy. Ahead of the 2019 hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander pressing Trump’s CDC Director and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination and vaccine confidence.
Senator Murray has been a leading voice in Congress against RFK Jr.’s dismantling of HHS and attacks on America’s public health infrastructure, raising the alarm over HHS’ unilateral reorganization plan and slamming the closure of the HHS Region 10 office in Seattle and the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Spokane Research Laboratory. Senator Murray has sent oversight letters and hosted numerous press conferences and events to lay out how the administration’s reckless gutting of HHS is risking Americans’ health and safety and will set our country back decades, and lifting up the voices of HHS employees who were fired for no reason and through no fault of their own.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI: Murray Calls for Kennedy to Reinstate Fired ACIP Members or Delay Meeting Until New Members Appropriately Vetted
Senator Murray, along with Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), authored the PREVENT Pandemics Act that made the CDC Director a Senate confirmed position for the first time starting this year
Dr. Monarez on ACIP members: “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings”
***WATCH: Murray’s questioning of Dr. Monarez***
Washington, D.C. – Today—during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the nomination for Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Senator Murray, senior member and former Chair of the Senate HELP Committee, questioned nominee Dr. Susan Monarez on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replacing them with 8 new unvetted members just two weeks ago, pressing Dr. Monarez on the need for the new ACIP members to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting today. Murray also raised alarm over Secretary Kennedy’s move to bring in Lyn Redwood, the leader of the anti-vaccine group founded by Secretary Kennedy, to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines at the ACIP meeting this week—furthering RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that the preservative used in vaccines causes autism. Senator Murray also pressed Dr. Monarez on the importance of ACIP in maintaining no-cost access to evidence-based vaccines for children and families, and how ACIP recommendation changes could force families to pay out of pocket for vaccines—or forgo vaccination.
Yesterday, Senator Murray called on Secretary Kennedy to reinstate the ACIP members he fired without cause, or delay this week’s meeting until the new members have been appropriately vetted. Earlier this month, Senator Murray held a press call with Dr. Helen Chu of Washington state, one of the 17 ACIP members abruptly fired by Secretary Kennedy, laying out how Secretary Kennedy’s purge of the Committee threatened public health and vaccine confidence.
Senator Murray was a vocal critic of President Trump’s first pick for CDC Director, Dave Weldon. The CDC Director is a Senate-confirmed position for the first time this year thanks to a provision in Senator Murray’s bipartisan PREVENT Pandemics Act, which she negotiated and passed with former Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in 2022.
[ACIP MEMBER QUALIFICATION]
Senator Murray began by questioning Dr. Monarez on the appointment process of members of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), as RFK Jr. appointed members with seemingly no vetting process, “Three weeks ago, Secretary Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of the ACIP. And then, he appointed 8 new, unvetted members—many of whom are known vaccine skeptics—and as we all know the Committee is starting today to vote on vaccine recommendations. As of last night, they’re down to just 7 members. I wanted to ask you, do you agree that any new ACIP members should have to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting?”
Dr. Monarez replied, “The members of the ACIP do need to go through a thorough ethics review before they are allowed to participate in those critical meetings.”
Senator Murray pressed, “So, if that ethics review process was not complete before the Committee met today—do you think any vaccine recommendations from this week’s meetings should be valid?”
“My understanding is that to convene the ACIP meetings, there needs to be a quorum of participants,” replied Dr. Monarez.
Senator Murray reiterated her question, “You just said they should through the ethics vetting before meeting, they are meeting today without that ethics review process. Should they make recommendations today? Should they be valid?”
Dr. Monarez answered, “I’m not familiar whether or not the members that are participating in the meeting this week have or have not gone through the ethics review necessary to allow them to participate in those meetings.”
“If it is known that they have not gone through the ethics process and they issue recommendations, would you accept them as valid?” asked Senator Murray.
“If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings,” said Dr. Monarez.
Senator Murray continued, “I would agree with that. And I know Chair Cassidy has expressed concerns about that as well. These affect millions of people, and it’s not just the members that I’m concerned about. Secretary Kennedy is bringing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists from his former organization into that crucial vaccine meeting. Lyn Redwood, who is from the Children’s Health Defense, is scheduled to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines, to further RFK’s debunked claims that it causes autism, and she cited a study that does not exist. And after that was pointed out, CDC uploaded a new presentation. But let me ask you, do you think it is acceptable for a known conspiracy theorist who cites made-up sources to be presenting at CDC’s ACIP meeting and advising on vaccine recommendations?”
Dr. Monarez replied, “I’m not familiar with the person you have identified. The ACIP is a public meeting and members of the public are in a position to be able to present what should be scientific and evidence-based information. And members of the ACIP should listen to that information and be able to evaluate the veracity of the data that is being discussed.”
“The CDC Director makes the decision on whether a vaccine should be recommended to the public and does not have to follow recommendations passed by ACIP. What will you do if the Committee votes to remove vaccines from the vaccine schedule—or to not approve new ones—in opposition to clear, established science?” Senator Murray asked.
“If I’m confirmed as a CDC Director, I will be an active listener and will be very interested in the discussions that take place at the ACIP meetings. I will be looking at how the ACIP members are able to evaluate this complex scientific information and the statistical analysis that goes into the risk benefit associated with that,” Dr. Monarez responded.
Senator Murray said, “I appreciate that long answer there, but I have to say, many of us are very deeply concerned about the recommendations because they impact millions of people as I said. But they also translate directly into which vaccines get covered by insurance—and which vaccines are then accessible to patients.”
[VACCINE COVERAGE]
Senator Murray then questioned Dr. Monarez on access to vaccines as RFK Jr. attempts to obstruct coverage for millions of Americans, “Secretary Kennedy has spread really blatant disinformation about vaccines, and undermined the established science by pretending families need to do their own research on vaccine safety. Secretary Kennedy recently decided to revoke COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, meaning that their insurance may now not cover the cost of their vaccines.”
“Do you think ‘leaving it up to the parents’ or the individual, if the ‘choice’ they are left with is to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get one vaccine that was previously free, is the right way to go here?” asked Senator Murray.
Dr. Monarez said, “I think we need to make sure that we are providing transparent and clear, effective communications about the benefits and the risks associated with vaccines so parents can make informed decision-making for themselves, their children, their families.”
Senator Murray concluded, “Well, it is hard to know if it’s informed if you have ACIP members who are listening to somebody who is a vaccine conspiracy theorist that has been debunked. And I just want to make this clear, when ACIP pulls its recommendation or refuses to recommend an evidence-based vaccine, a lot more kids and a lot more families will not get vaccinated. They will not be able to afford it. And that is the reality.”
_______________
Senator Murray forcefully opposed the nomination of notorious anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. to be Secretary of HHS, and she has long worked to combat vaccine skepticism and highlight the importance of scientific research and vaccines. Murray was also a leading voice against the nomination of Dr. Dave Weldon to lead CDC, repeatedly speaking up about her serious concerns with the nominee immediately after their meeting. In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy. Ahead of the 2019 hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander pressing Trump’s CDC Director and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination and vaccine confidence.
Senator Murray has been a leading voice in Congress against RFK Jr.’s dismantling of HHS and attacks on America’s public health infrastructure, raising the alarm over HHS’ unilateral reorganization plan and slamming the closure of the HHS Region 10 office in Seattle and the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Spokane Research Laboratory. Senator Murray has sent oversight letters and hosted numerous press conferences and events to lay out how the administration’s reckless gutting of HHS is risking Americans’ health and safety and will set our country back decades, and lifting up the voices of HHS employees who were fired for no reason and through no fault of their own.
Source: European Parliament
on European technological sovereignty and digital infrastructure
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 173, 179 and 190 thereof,
– having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ (COM(2025)0030),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘Commission work programme 2025: Moving forward together: A Bolder, Simpler, Faster Union’ (COM(2025)0045),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2023/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s semiconductor ecosystem[1] (the Chips Act),
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union[2] (NIS 2 Directive),
– having regard to the detailed report by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) entitled ‘Foresight Cybersecurity Threats For 2030 – Update 2024’, published in March 2024,
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements[3] (the Cyber Resilience Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013[4] (the Cybersecurity Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2025/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 laying down measures to strengthen solidarity and capacities in the Union to detect, prepare for and respond to cyber threats and incidents[5] (the Cyber Solidarity Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2025/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/881 as regards managed security services[6],
– having regard to the Commission White Paper of 21 February 2024 entitled ‘How to master Europe’s digital infrastructure needs?’ (COM(2024)0081),
– having regard to Mario Draghi’s report of 9 September 2024 entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness’,
– having regard to Enrico Letta’s report of 17 April 2024 entitled ‘Much more than a market’,
– having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2024 entitled ‘State of the Digital Decade 2024’ (COM(2024)0260),
– having regard to Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030[7],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/903 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union[8] (the Interoperable Europe Act),
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (recast)[9],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Regulations (EU) 2021/1058, (EU) 2021/1056, (EU) 2021/1057, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) 2021/1060, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697 and (EU) 2021/241[10],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828[11] (the Data Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1309 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU[12] (the Gigabit Infrastructure Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence[13] (the Artificial Intelligence Act),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014[14],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe Programme and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240[15],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013[16],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme[17],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2023/588 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2023 establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the period 2023-2027[18],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2085 of 19 November 2021 establishing the Joint Undertakings under Horizon Europe and repealing Regulations (EC) No 219/2007, (EU) No 557/2014, (EU) No 558/2014, (EU) No 559/2014, (EU) No 560/2014, (EU) No 561/2014 and (EU) No 642/2014[19],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 of 13 July 2021 on establishing the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1488[20],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1732 of 17 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 as regards a EuroHPC initiative for start-ups in order to boost European leadership in trustworthy artificial intelligence[21],
– having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (recast)[22],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework[23],
– having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 21 February 2025 to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘EU Action Plan on Cable Security’ (JOIN(2025)0009),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2020 entitled ‘Secure 5G deployment in the EU – Implementing the EU toolbox’ (COM(2020)0050),
– having regard to the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade, which commits ‘to promote a European way for the digital transformation, putting people at the centre’,
– having regard to the Commission communication of 30 December 2021 entitled ‘Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest’ (IPCEIs) (COM(2021)8481),
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A10-0107/2025),
A. whereas technological sovereignty should be seen as the whole value chain from excellence in research to creating better competition and achieving greater European sovereignty;
B. whereas the EU relies on non-EU countries for over 80 % of digital products, services, infrastructure and intellectual property;
C. whereas a few technological companies hold concentrated power over key digital markets and control over underlying internet infrastructure, including operating systems, computing, artificial intelligence (AI), search engines, social media capacity, digital advertising and payment services;
D. whereas our technological sovereignty will greatly depend on Europe’s ability to create the market conditions needed for European companies to flourish and compete with each other, thereby increasing the quality of their products;
E. whereas the EU is at risk of failing to meet its digital decade targets and objectives, including the adoption of cloud, big data and AI;
F. whereas European firms contribute a minor share to global research and development (R&D) in software, internet technologies and electronics, while the United States and China lead in these sectors;
G. whereas the Commission’s Digital Compass, Digital Decade Policy Programme, and Competitiveness Compass are essential frameworks for strengthening Europe’s digital ecosystem, securing technological leadership and ensuring long-term economic resilience;
H. whereas digital infrastructure is composed of hardware elements related to connectivity, including fibre, 5G and 6G, submarine cables, satellites and spectrum, and computing, including semiconductors, data centres, HPC and quantum technologies, and of software elements including identity solutions, the Internet of Things, and cloud and AI systems, as well as the intermediary layer including advertising, search engines, payments and communication systems;
I. whereas the EU’s competitiveness will increasingly depend on the digitalisation of all sectors, supported by resilient, safe and trustworthy digital infrastructure; notes, in this context, that the digital single market is a vital asset as it can enable companies to grow and scale up;
J. whereas the full potential of the digital single market remains untapped, with intra-EU trade in digital services representing just 8 % of GDP, which is significantly lower than the 25 % for trade in digital goods;
K. whereas the availability of eID schemes and digital public services and access to e-Health records are increasing, but there are still significant gaps in the provision of privacy preserving, fully user-centric, accessible and sovereign digital public services among Member States due to differences in the adoption of eID;
L. whereas eID is currently available to 93 % of the EU’s population, but achieving 100 % of digital public services for citizens and businesses by 2030 remains challenging;
M. whereas interoperability and interconnectedness would enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and might benefit from policies such as open-source first and public money, public code, and the implementation of common and open standards;
N. whereas digital infrastructure is of key importance for EU industry, including the automotive industry and the possible development of connected and autonomous vehicles; whereas robust data and communications infrastructure is needed to support a secure ecosystem for connected and autonomous vehicles;
O. whereas fibre-optic networks form one of the backbones of the EU’s digital infrastructure, enabling high-speed internet, 5G networks and future technological improvements;
P. whereas the EU is behind on the roll-out of 5G to meet its 2030 targets, with still limited fibre coverage of only about 64 % of European households being included;
Q. whereas investment needs in state-of-the-art connectivity in the EU are immense;
R. whereas resolving challenges related to access to land and grids is key to the successful deployment of digital infrastructure;
S. whereas the EU GOVSATCOM initiative aims to ensure the long-term availability of secure, reliable and cost-effective governmental satellite communication services for EU and national public authorities that manage critical security infrastructure and missions;
T. whereas chips play a crucial role in increasing the technological competitiveness and resilience of Europe;
U. whereas the Commission’s Competitiveness Compass, the Clean Industrial Deal and the 2025 Commission Work Programme make little to no mention of semiconductor technologies despite their critical importance for the EU’s industrial ambition;
V. whereas the Chips Act was an ad hoc adaptation mechanism aimed at addressing certain challenges regarding semiconductor shortages; whereas its areas of action are mostly limited to advanced semiconductors; whereas EU engagement on legacy semiconductors is insufficient; whereas the revision of the Chips Act is expected in September 2026;
W. whereas the existing European regional clusters in the semiconductor sector have a role to play and should be further strengthened;
X. whereas processors, memory technologies, graphics processing units (GPUs), and quantum chips are critical to Europe’s digital infrastructure and supply chain security;
Y. whereas cloud services are fundamental to a wide range of computational activities and computing services that have become an essential enabler of competitiveness;
Z. whereas federated models could enhance the competitiveness of the EU market by facilitating the emergence of significant European alternatives, building on local market expertise and presence;
AA. whereas large-scale AI infrastructure, such as AI gigafactories, is essential for enabling open and collaborative development of the most complex AI models;
AB. whereas the AI value chain is still under development and tackling the development of AI models is only part of it; whereas European AI solutions may be developed using Europe’s public and private computing infrastructure, driving innovation, and start-ups and small companies should be in particular beneficiaries of access to public computing infrastructure;
AC. whereas AI models that can be run on widely available hardware at moderate costs allow a greater number of actors to shape how AI systems are created and used, providing more immediate value in applications and enabling a more democratic use of AI;
AD. whereas at the moment, the roll-out, marketing and deployment of AI is often shaped by a small number of big tech companies; whereas some AI features are not being rolled out in the EU at the same time as in non-EU countries, creating a competitive disadvantage for European businesses and consumers;
AE. whereas data centres are an essential part of an advanced digital society, as enablers of distributed processing and effective data storage;
AF. whereas trusted capacity and availability of data storage is essential for European resilience and development; whereas most data centres in Europe are not owned by European companies;
AG. whereas building and operating large-scale data centres requires substantial investment;
AH. whereas around 9 % of global electricity consumption results from data centres, cloud services and connectivity;
AI. whereas submarine cables are critical infrastructure for global connectivity, economic stability and security, carrying over 99 % of international communications through them, and they remain vulnerable to physical damage, cyberthreats and geopolitical risks;
AJ. whereas secure and resilient digital infrastructure is crucial, particularly considering the increasing number of cyberattacks against the EU, its Member States and its industry and society;
AK. whereas the EU toolbox for 5G security is important for preventing cyberespionage and strengthening the resilience of supply chains in the EU’s digital infrastructure;
AL. whereas 21 % of businesses cite compliance and legal uncertainties as a barrier to digital investment;
AM. whereas the ‘one in, one out’ approach ensures that all burdens introduced by Commission initiatives are considered and that administrative burdens are offset by removing burdens of equivalent value in the same policy area;
AN. whereas the energy consumption challenges in AI, cloud and quantum computing, as well as data centres, require the integration of sustainability into digital infrastructure strategies;
AO. whereas data centre power consumption is projected to nearly triple by the end of this decade, increasing from approximately 62 terawatt-hours (TWh) today to more than 150 TWh, thus escalating from 2 % to 5 % of total European power consumption;
AP. whereas the digital skills gap remains a major concern, with only 54 % of European citizens possessing at least basic digital skills – well below the 80 % target set in the digital decade policy programme;
AQ. whereas the shortage of ICT professionals in the EU is projected to reach 12 million by 2030, falling significantly short of the EU’s target of 20 million skilled workers;
AR. whereas the 2024 State of the Digital Decade report and the Draghi report both stress the urgent need to invest in digital and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills to preserve Europe’s technological capabilities and global competitiveness;
AS. whereas 60 % of EU companies report difficulties in recruiting skilled workers in areas such as AI, cybersecurity and clean technologies, posing a significant barrier to innovation, competitiveness and the green and digital transitions;
AT. whereas current labour market developments, including global lay-offs and political instability outside the EU, create an opportunity to attract high-skilled digital talent to the EU;
AU. whereas increasing competitiveness and resilience require appropriate funding; whereas public funding can act as a catalyst and private investment and competitive market forces are key for the long-term development of digital infrastructure;
AV. whereas a robust, agile and excellence-driven research and innovation (R&I) ecosystem is essential to ensure the EU’s global competitiveness and leadership in strategic technologies, such as quantum and AI;
AW. whereas standardisation is at the core of genuine European digital and technological sovereignty; whereas the importance of standards is growing due to increasing technological competition across the world, particularly with the United States and China;
AX. whereas the EU is committed to negotiating comprehensive digital trade agreements (DTAs) to promote secure, resilient and competitive digital infrastructure development with partner countries;
AY. whereas the Commission has announced landmark DTAs with South Korea and Singapore, setting an important precedent for future agreements;
AZ. whereas Parliament and the Council have agreed on the ‘EU horizontal provisions on Cross-border data flows and protection of personal data and privacy in the Digital Trade Title of EU trade agreements’, which was endorsed by the Commission and remains an important tool in relation to digital trade and the establishment of new DTAs;
General introduction
1. Underlines that European sovereignty is the ability to build capacity, resilience and security by reducing strategic dependencies, preventing reliance on foreign actors and single service providers, and safeguarding critical technologies and infrastructure; calls for the development of a comprehensive risk assessment framework to monitor and address dependencies across the digital value chain; underlines that such a framework should serve as a basis for ensuring EU preparedness and resilience by enhancing European industrial policy and boosting domestic R&D and manufacturing capabilities in strategic technologies;
2. Believes that technological sovereignty is the capacity to design, develop and scale up digital technologies needed for the competitiveness of our economy, the welfare of our citizens and the EU’s open strategic autonomy in a globalised world; believes that this includes ensuring the EU’s ability to make autonomous decisions, engaging with trusted non-EU countries and entities, diversifying and strengthening supply chains and promoting the concept of openness and interoperability to ensure that Europe remains an attractive hub for investment;
3. Recognises the increasing concentration of power in non-EU companies, which constrains Europe’s ability to innovate, compete and maintain control over its digital economy, society and democracy; is concerned by excessive dependencies on non-EU actors in critical areas such as cloud infrastructure, semiconductors, AI and cybersecurity – where market concentration and foreign control threaten to undermine Europe’s competitiveness, democratic resilience and security;
4. Believes that the EU’s industrial tech ambitions should focus on the key strategic technologies of the future, such as semiconductor technologies or quantum, that contribute to the EU’s open strategic autonomy and are essential for our green, digital and defence transitions;
5. Recognises the shift in the geopolitical landscape and the resulting opportunity for market demand for European products and services; sees this as a window of opportunity to position Europe as a global leader in trusted and secure digital solutions;
6. Underlines the need to foster a supportive regulatory environment that encourages innovation, investment and the development of cutting-edge technologies in Europe, while protecting EU end users from the consequences of extraterritoriality;
7. Recognises the need for a comprehensive European industrial policy for the digital ecosystem, integrating all relevant policy domains such as market access, standardisation, R&D, investment, trade and international cooperation; calls on the Commission to develop this comprehensive policy with the aim of reducing harmful strategic dependencies, strengthening domestic value chains and ensuring a secure, trustworthy and innovation-driven digital ecosystem that adheres to European values;
8. Recalls that the high-tech product and digital services markets depend heavily on external supply chains, posing risks to sovereignty and resilience; stresses the importance of boosting industrial capacity and technological expertise in emerging and disruptive technologies to support the EU’s open strategic autonomy;
9. Emphasises that boosting Europe’s technological sovereignty in the era of rapid technological development requires enhancing innovation and commercialisation in order to build the necessary capabilities; highlights that Europe must transform itself into a globally attractive and agile business environment by reducing bureaucracy, enhancing regulatory predictability and fostering entrepreneurship and risk-taking;
10. Recognises that open strategic autonomy and democratic resilience must be at the core of the Commission’s agenda and that a comprehensive approach must integrate procurement, funding and long-term institutional frameworks to establish sovereign digital infrastructure in critical domains;
11. Calls on the Commission to analyse and establish a comprehensive list of critical dependencies in digital infrastructure and technologies, assessing, at minimum, storage services, identity and payment systems, communication platforms, as well as the software, protocols and standards that support them, and to propose measures to promote market access for products and services with a strong positive impact on the EU’s technological sovereignty, resilience and sustainability; believes, in that regard, that the use of specific award criteria in public procurement may be promoted in areas where such critical dependencies exist; believes that such criteria can help incentivise competition and strengthen European technological sovereignty by facilitating the procurement of European digital products and services, where possible;
Digital public infrastructure
12. Strongly believes that digital infrastructure is the backbone of our economy and that there should therefore be a base layer of digital public infrastructure (DPI) that ensures sovereignty and a competition-friendly market environment; observes that the market has not developed this base layer in many important areas, which has resulted in monopolies and reliance on foreign actors; underlines that in order to fill this gap, the EU should take the lead in creating a strong foundation for DPI by creating layers of digital technologies consisting of semiconductors, connectivity solutions, cloud infrastructure, software, data and AI; believes that European DPI should be founded on fair and competitive economic models and also use governance models where neither private companies nor governments maintain centralised control; is of the opinion that it should be built on common and open standards, embrace interoperability and interconnectedness, so as to prevent user and vendor ‘lock-ins’, and spur innovation by facilitating new market entrants, and that it should also ensure privacy and security by default;
13. Believes that the deployment of DPI should be focused on areas where critical dependencies exist, as identified in the Commission’s comprehensive list; calls on the Commission to prepare a detailed and comprehensive plan for establishing European DPI by identifying technologies that are best suited to European action, and urges the Commission and the Member States to dedicate appropriate resources to deploying European DPI;
14. Stresses that European DPI should be stimulated by coordinated action at EU level to ensure the presence and competitiveness of European providers as well as a competitive market environment; underlines that these objectives will not be achieved through regulation alone and will require significant public investment; recognises that the forthcoming multiannual financial framework (MFF) should therefore include additional funding for this purpose, focusing on EU added value and financing the base layer of European DPI;
15. Recognises that as part of the forthcoming MFF, the EU must commit to increased spending to achieve technological sovereignty; underlines that this should include a dedicated envelope for the development and deployment of the DPI layers identified in the Commission’s comprehensive list, as well as additional funds to ensure a competition-friendly market environment in other digital areas;
16. Believes that the funding under the forthcoming MFF should prioritise active capacity-building in key hardware, software and service areas, including high-performance computing, quantum computing, encryption and communication, connectivity, cloud, data, web and AI ecosystems, and digital libraries;
17. Is of the opinion that European DPI should be based on EU values and remain open to like-minded non-EU partners; calls on the Commission and the Member States to sustain their efforts and add more impetus to the process with the UN Development Programme on DPI;
18. Recognises e-government services as a key enabler of efficient, secure and accessible public service delivery, which should be designed to facilitate digital identification, government data sharing and public sector payments without distorting markets or undermining existing private sector solutions; emphasises that the EU’s approach to e-government services should focus on strengthening digital government-to-citizen and government-to-business interactions, while ensuring trust, interoperability and accessibility; believes, therefore, that secure and seamless access to public services requires a trustworthy e-identification framework and welcomes the announcement of a ‘business wallet’ aimed at significantly simplifying the interconnection between businesses and public authorities;
19. Calls on the Commission to further develop public interest data platforms, enabling secure cross-border data sharing between public and private entities for use cases, in particular, in healthcare, urban planning and environmental monitoring; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to promote interoperability between public interest and industry-specific data platforms, ensuring the seamless flow of data while minimising administrative burdens; notes that this could be achieved by leveraging existing market-driven solutions that foster innovation, maintain trust and uphold privacy and security standards;
20. Recognises that under the current legal framework, European citizens have the right to control their personal data and that data generated within the EU must be processed in accordance with EU law; stresses that safeguarding privacy and personal data is essential for building trust in the digital economy, allowing European consumers to engage with confidence, regardless of where their data is processed; highlights that European companies – particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – must be able to make use of data in a lawful, ethical and secure manner to drive sustainable growth and competitiveness;
Digital infrastructure
21. Highlights that digital infrastructure is the backbone of Europe’s economy and society and that its importance will continue to grow; calls on the Commission to include in the requested list of critical dependencies a comprehensive assessment of the composition of European digital infrastructure in order to adequately analyse the state of play, assess risks and coordinate action;
22. Believes that in order to strengthen digital infrastructure, it is essential to implement capacity-building initiatives in critical areas at EU level; considers that these initiatives should focus on developing a base layer of public infrastructure, such as a network of AI gigafactories and a European web index model; is of the opinion that this base layer will empower companies to develop their business models and boost technological sovereignty; points to the digital solutions created by the EU, such as the EU digital identity, that can offer innovative infrastructure for the EU’s digital economy;
23. Recognises the strategic importance of critical digital infrastructure and the need to strengthen their security and resilience; understands that critical digital infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, cables (terrestrial and submarine), cellular network towers, satellite communication systems, spectrum and radio equipment, cloud servers that contain sensitive information and data centres that process sensitive information, as well as certain software elements, including security software that protects critical networks and data centres;
24. Highlights the need to ensure that this infrastructure falls under EU jurisdiction, meaning that it fully adheres to EU law; stresses the importance of privacy and security-by-design; calls on the Commission. therefore, to introduce legislation to mitigate risks posed by high-risk vendors from non-EU countries, including risks posed by foreign-controlled energy resource providers;
25. Calls on the Commission, while preparing future legislative proposals and the forthcoming MFF, to concentrate efforts on deepening the single market, in line with the recommendations made in Enrico Letta’s report entitled ‘Much more than a market’ and in Mario Draghi’s report on ‘The future of European competitiveness’, with the aim of unlocking the potential of the digital single market;
26. Takes note of the recommendations laid down in these two reports that the EU needs a paradigm shift from promoting connectivity in the EU to establishing a single market for electronic communications and connectivity; supports a simplified, harmonised and innovation-friendly telecommunications framework that ensures fair competition and the accessibility of infrastructure;
27. Welcomes the Commission’s white paper on how to master Europe’s digital infrastructure needs, which outlines three pillars: creating the ‘3C Network’ – ‘Connected Collaborative Computing’, completing the digital single market, and secure and resilient digital infrastructure for Europe;
28. Views the white paper and the subsequent consultation process as part of the preparation of the legislative initiatives planned for this term, including the Digital Networks Act; calls on the Commission to take a more holistic view of digital infrastructure throughout this process and to acknowledge that digital infrastructure comprises many elements beyond mere connectivity; underlines the need to accompany any new digital policy measure with an impact assessment;
29. Urges the Commission to simplify and harmonise telecommunications rules as part of the forthcoming Digital Networks Act and the broader Digital Package;
30. Calls on the Commission to introduce an EU cloud and AI development act to strengthen European data infrastructure and the promotion of European cloud providers; underlines that this act should aim to actively build a European single market for cloud and AI;
31. Acknowledges that deploying cutting-edge digital infrastructure across the EU requires substantial investment and recognises that both public and private funding are essential for achieving this goal; expresses concern over the persistent shortage of venture capital and investment financing in Europe, which undermines technological sovereignty; calls on the Commission to significantly scale up public-private investment instruments, including venture capital, strategic platforms and dedicated funding tools for start-ups and scale-ups in critical technology sectors; highlights the importance of leveraging public procurement to support the deployment and scaling of open and interoperable digital solutions and of ensuring that private capital, competition and innovation become the main drivers of Europe’s digital transformation over the medium and long term;
High-speed connectivity
32. Is of the opinion that the upcoming Digital Networks Act must support the objective of providing all EU consumers with high-quality connectivity by 2030, especially in remote and rural areas, as well as removing administrative barriers for the roll-out of 5G, 6G and secure, high-speed broadband;
33. Recognises the increasing convergence of telecommunications infrastructure with cloud and edge technologies, and sees the potential of open radio access networks to deliver advanced technological solutions, reduce costs and enhance the interoperability of connectivity; believes that the future of connectivity lies in the complementarity of diverse technologies such as 5G/6G, Wi-Fi and satellite, where seamless integration benefits both businesses and consumers;
34. Recognises that with cloud and edge services at the core of their transformation, connectivity networks are evolving rapidly into platforms for innovation and will increasingly depend on cloud computing, AI, virtualisation and other technologies;
35. Calls for ambitious targets in the development and innovation of wireless communication networks, acknowledging the need for a broad-based approach that includes cloud computing, AI, edge computing and quantum computing; emphasises that the innovation ecosystem for electronic communications, especially for vertically integrated telecoms, should remain market-driven, and insists that future regulatory measures be based on thorough, knowledge-based impact assessments of existing regulations;
36. Recognises that competition between operators of all sizes remains a key driver of investment in connectivity networks; calls on the Member States to ensure that copper networks are switched off progressively in favour of fibre-optic or 5G technologies, in particular where regular maintenance or updates of the network are needed, thus ensuring that the shift is carried out in an attainable manner and allowing providers to plan logistically and financially in advance;
37. Stresses that all consumers in the EU should have access to adequate quality, reliable and affordable connectivity, thus contributing to increased demand for connectivity services; calls on the Commission and the Member States to expand and upgrade digital networks, especially in rural areas, and to support public-private investments in broadband and 5G/6G deployment, while maintaining cybersecurity standards and secure-by-design principles;
38. Is convinced that, as digital connectivity infrastructure such as fibre, 5G and 6G will be crucial for future industrial competitiveness, the forthcoming MFF should include funds for the large-scale deployment of network infrastructure, bridging the existing deployment gap to achieve the 2030 Digital Decade targets, creating pan-European 5G coverage for citizens’ use and ensuring the successful deployment of Industry 4.0 tools;
Fibre
39. Stresses the importance of accelerating the deployment of fibre-optic networks and modern wireless communications systems that can deliver fast, secure and reliable digital services;
40. Recognises that the need to prioritise direct fibre connections for homes, businesses and public institutions is crucial to ensure ultra-fast and reliable connectivity, in addition to network roll-outs with public works, such as roads, water and electricity, to streamline fibre roll-out;
41. Welcomes the introduction of the Gigabit Infrastructure Act, which responds to the growing needs for faster, reliable and data-intensive connectivity; recognises the importance of the shared use of ducts and poles for deploying very high capacity networks to optimise resources and reduce costs; urges the Member States to streamline permitting processes and harmonise regulations to lower financial and administrative barriers to the expansion of fibre infrastructure;
5G and 6G
42. Believes that private investments are essential for deployment of electronic communication networks, 5G and 6G that are advanced enough in terms of transmission, speed, storage capacity, edge computing power and interoperability;
43. Stresses that the enforcement and implementation of the Gigabit Infrastructure Act is further necessary for the creation of a one-stop shop for permits and a centralised digital permitting process to reduce delays in infrastructure deployment and to ensure uniform rules for infrastructure access, pricing and environmental impact assessments; calls, in this regard, for strong efforts in this area;
44. Takes the view that the EU needs strong cybersecurity protection in all critical infrastructure sectors, with stricter measures to de-risk high-risk vendors in 5G and 6G networks, ensuring dense deployment of small cells and macro towers, particularly in urban and rural areas with inconsistent coverage, and ensuring the sustainability and energy efficiency of the infrastructure so as to support Europe’s global competitiveness in the digital economy;
Spectrum
45. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards enhanced coordination of spectrum allocations, in particular through earlier identification and the harmonisation of the release of new frequencies, starting with 6 GHz frequencies; calls for a radio spectrum policy that promotes investment in Europe, including through the harmonisation of spectrum assignment policies across the Member States to accelerate 5G deployment based on best practices, the promotion of longer license durations and access to new spectrum such as the upper 6 GHz band in order to meet future demand and enable 6G; believes that a shared effort from public and private entities is necessary in order to increase the competitiveness of Europe and not lag behind the fastest growing networks in the world, i.e. in China and South Korea;
Satellites and satellite communication systems
46. Underlines the importance of satellite-based communications in developing EU digital infrastructure, increasing its resilience, strengthening the capabilities of EU actors, and reducing dependence on non-EU providers, particularly in the area of defence; highlights the need to provide alternative connectivity solutions for consumers in remote and rural areas;
47. Highlights the strategic role of the EU space programme, as one of the pillars of EU sovereignty, in providing state-of-the-art and secure positioning, navigation and timing services for Galileo and EGNOS and cost-effective satellite communication services for GOVSATCOM; notes that this allows the EU and its Member States to have greater sovereignty in their satellite capabilities, including geopositioning, earth observation, space surveillance and connectivity; welcomes, in particular, the EU GOVSATCOM and IRIS2 programmes, which aim to ensure the short- and long-term availability of secure, reliable and cost-effective governmental satellite communication services for EU and national public authorities that manage critical security infrastructure and missions;
48. Deplores the strong dependence on non-EU data for the tracking and surveillance of space objects; stresses the need for Europe to urgently reinforce its own capabilities and infrastructure in space situational awareness (SSA) to ensure open strategic autonomy and security; calls on the Commission and the Member States to significantly increase investment in EU-owned surveillance and tracking assets, and to develop effective mechanisms for information-sharing among the Member States, enabling Europe to independently monitor and protect its critical space infrastructure;
49. Stresses the importance of private sector involvement in launcher technologies to further accelerate the deployment of IRIS2; stresses the importance of fostering a robust and competitive European space launch sector through greater private sector involvement and support for upstream and downstream industries; calls on the Commission to promote a European space industrial policy that strengthens sovereignty in space technologies and services by reducing strategic dependencies and improving the operational governance of European space programmes;
50. Calls, to this end, for concrete measures to facilitate the provision of satellite services throughout Europe, including by defining common procedures and conditions; calls, in parallel, for fair competition, with clear and enforceable rules for all satellite constellations accessing the EU market;
51. Notes that there are currently several issues with latency in satellite networks and recognises that the integration of satellite networks with 5G and, in the future, 6G technologies is pivotal in extending the reach and reliability of terrestrial networks;
High-performance computing (HPC) systems
52. Recognises the progress made in recent years in enhancing HPC; calls on the Commission to continuously integrate and enhance the computing power at EU HPC centres, in particular, enhancing the training of AI models and preparing for future advancements in supercomputing;
53. Calls on the Commission to develop a coordinated strategy to bridge the gap between Europe’s cutting-edge HPC technology and its practical, scalable deployment across industries, including by creating a public network for supercomputing; notes that this strategy should foster collaboration between public institutions and private sector partners, including SMEs, to ensure that Europe’s HPC capabilities become a key driver of economic competitiveness and technological sovereignty;
54. Highlights that HPC centres must ensure accessibility for developers and deployers of AI foundation models, generative AI and applied AI; notes that EuroHPC Centres should be available for these use cases and particularly for SMEs, start-ups and scale-ups; emphasises that this must be seamlessly complemented by initiatives to enable the development and deployment of AI in the EU;
55. Welcomes the creation of new AI factories; underlines that AI factories will upgrade EuroHPC supercomputers to deliver computing capacity for AI and support start-ups and scale-ups in the training and large-scale development of general-purpose and trustworthy AI models;
Hardware for computing: semiconductors, chips and quantum chips
56. Believes that urgent action is needed to boost EU domestic semiconductor manufacturing, improving supply chain resilience by forming strategic global partnerships, encouraging start-ups and innovation, fostering cross-border collaboration in advanced semiconductor development and providing financial incentives, regulatory support and market access;
57. Emphasises the need for legal certainty to support semiconductor development, ensuring secure supply chains for critical raw materials and avoiding disruptions caused by investment uncertainties;
58. Urges to give utmost political importance to ensuring a sufficient supply of AI chips in the EU and to make it a focal point of EU digital industry policies; notes the increase in demand for AI chips driven by expanding applications in cloud computing, edge devices, autonomous systems and generative AI;
59. Calls on the Commission to react to the new geopolitical realities and the use of digital supply chains as pressure tools; urges the Commission to find a negotiated solution to the US ban on the export of AI chips to 16 EU Member States;
60. Calls on the Commission to put advanced AI chips, including their design and production, at the core of the revision of the Chips Act; calls on the Commission to present the revision this year, featuring a long-term strategy rooted in current geopolitical realities that builds European strategic indispensability through technological leadership, adequate production capabilities and a strong R&D ecosystem, which will be essential to secure European sovereignty in increasingly troubled times; believes that it is crucial to strengthen the interactions among research, training, suppliers and robust public infrastructure to accelerate the path from research, development, testing and finally full-load production;
61. Believes that the EU should enhance its efforts on quantum chip development if it intends to accelerate the time-to-market for EU industrial innovation in quantum technology;
62. Calls on the Commission to support the manufacturing within the EU of widely used chips e.g., for electronic devices and cars; calls for support for the development of chips that reduce the energy consumption of the digital sector;
63. Underlines the need to support the performance of the circular economy and recalls that information and communications technology products and other electronics are part of the priority product groups in the working plan to be adopted by April 2025 under Regulation (EU) 2024/1781[24];
64. Believes that additional funding under the forthcoming MFF must be allocated to the development of semiconductor production capacities and other next-generation semiconductor technologies and processes (e.g. photonic chips, wide-bandgap chips, as well as design, manufacturing, testing, assembly and advanced packaging) within the EU;
Cloud services
65. Recognises that there is a market need for sovereign solutions that offer enhanced levels of control over data for certain categories of sensitive data and acknowledges the risks associated with reliance on single dominant providers; calls for a strategy for reducing reliance on foreign cloud providers, while fostering European alternatives;
66. Notes that the discussions on the EU Cybersecurity Certification Scheme for Cloud Services have not brought any results; points out that there are sovereignty considerations, in particular related to the extraterritoriality of binding legal regimes, that cannot be solved through technical discussions; calls on the Commission to propose a definition of sovereign cloud and its scope of application in the planned cloud and AI development act;
67. Notes the need to secure data storage and computational power, and distributed computing infrastructure; calls on the Commission to ensure that cloud users have the ability to choose solutions that meet their needs by urgently removing barriers to switching and diversifying providers through multi-cloud strategies, and by fostering a competitive European cloud market, thereby reducing reliance on single providers and enhancing digital sovereignty;
68. Calls on the Commission to leverage initiatives such as 8ra and IPCEI CIS to advance decentralised cloud and edge infrastructure, which are enablers of sovereignty and contribute to reducing reliance on foreign providers and ensuring resilience while enhancing operational flexibility within Europe;
AI systems
69. Welcomes the InvestAI initiative, including the AI gigafactories; emphasises the need for Europe to position itself as a global leader in AI model training, scientific research and quantum computing advancements; is committed to further supporting AI development by launching initiatives such as AI factories to provide computing power for start-ups, scale-ups and researchers;
70. Calls on the Commission to further support the design and development of European AI and to adopt policies and measures that will enable European industrial sectors to benefit from their data and AI deployment;
71. Emphasises that the delayed deployment of AI-driven innovations hinders technological progress, market competitiveness and digital transformation within the EU;
72. Expects that the public-private financing model will unlock unprecedented private investment in AI that will open up access to supercomputers for start-ups and industry to supercomputers;
Quantum
73. Recognises the urgent need to define a clear roadmap for quantum technology development, including quantum computing and quantum encryption, ensuring that public and private investments lead to tangible commercial applications;
74. Calls on the Commission to conduct an assessment of existing national quantum sandbox frameworks and how existing legislation applies to them in order to prevent market fragmentation; welcomes the announcement of the Quantum Strategy and Quantum Act in the Commission’s Competitiveness Compass;
75. Urges the Commission to ensure that the Quantum Act, accompanied by an impact assessment, positions Europe as the leading region for quantum excellence and innovation by investing in R&D and innovation, mobilising funding to scale up the European quantum ecosystem, capabilities and production, and ensuring Europe’s leading quantum research is commercialised in Europe; underlines that it should deliver tangible technological applications by fostering policies that accelerate technological maturity and facilitate the transition from research to commercial success;
76. Calls for targeted investments, industry collaboration and regulatory frameworks that support the development, scaling and market adoption of quantum technologies across key sectors;
77. Calls for a coordinated EU strategy for post-quantum cryptography to protect data from future cyberthreats;
Data centres
78. Calls on the Commission to support ecosystems for sharing industry-specific data within industrial sectors, fostering collaboration and driving innovation, while maintaining data sovereignty and ensuring compliance with EU regulations, as outlined in the Data Act; urges the Commission for strong enforcement to ensure that dominant market players do not impose unfair terms on SMEs and mid-sized enterprises when accessing and sharing data;
79. Believes that there is a need to ensure interconnected infrastructure that would allow data centres to work together efficiently under common standards with high-speed connectivity, while flexibility, security and scalability would be maintained; believes this interconnected system would help in ensuring distributed redundancy so that data and services remain available even in the event of a data centre failure;
80. Calls on the Commission to prioritise interoperability across platforms, enabling the seamless integration of data across businesses and sectors, in alignment with the requirements of the Data Act, which mandate data portability and interoperability obligations for cloud and edge services; stresses the need for the robust enforcement of these provisions to prevent vendor lock-in and ensure that European industrial ecosystems can leverage data-driven innovation without technical or contractual barriers;
81. Recalls the Commission’s plan to make data centres climate-neutral and highly energy efficient by 2030; sees the need to improve the integration of data centres with the energy system, focusing on heat reuse and providing flexibility services to the electricity grid needs; recognises the need to incentivise research for cooling and energy-efficient processors, while special attention should be given to supporting EU data centres; urges the Commission to ensure clear and consistent implementation of existing legal requirements for data centre operators across EU legislation and the Member States;
82. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase and target public investment and to incentivise private investment in digital infrastructure to enable the growth and modernisation of data centres;
Submarine cables
83. Calls on the Commission to take coordinated action to protect submarine cables and reinforce cable security and repair capabilities; stresses the need for continued investment in the construction of new submarine cables to ensure redundancy; welcomes the EU’s role in co-financing such projects to enhance digital infrastructure and connectivity across the Member States; calls on the Commission to explore potential synergies between the maintenance of undersea digital and energy infrastructure;
84. Emphasises the importance of improving EU and Member State repair capabilities and response mechanisms to handle submarine cable disruptions, which are essential for maintaining secure and uninterrupted communications; underlines the importance of international cooperation in repairing sabotaged cables and facilitating the necessary investments, and calls for the establishment of an EU-based rapid-response repair fleet to ensure swift recovery and operational continuity in the event of disruptions; calls on the Commission to carry out an assessment of regulatory measures to ensure fair access and security, regardless of whether the infrastructure is privately or publicly owned;
85. Welcomes the adoption of the action plan on cable security, which will be organised around four pillars: prevention, detection, response and repair, and deterrence; highlights the importance of its full and timely implementation; urges, in the current geopolitical context, increased investment in technologies to strengthen the security and resilience of subsea and offshore infrastructure;
86. Calls on the Commission to promote R&I to enable advanced technological innovations in cable security, including early warning systems and AI-driven threat assessments;
87. Urges the Commission to review available instruments designed to better leverage private investments in support of Cable Projects of European Interest (CPEIs); calls on the Commission to include submarine cable projects in the list of IPCEIs; recognises the need to streamline and simplify the application and administrative process governing IPCEIs;
Cybersecurity
88. Recalls the legislative work carried out over the previous legislative term aimed at significantly improving cybersecurity in the EU; welcomes, in particular, the adoption of the Cyber Resilience Act, the Cyber Solidarity Act and the NIS2 Directive; stresses the need for the harmonised and timely implementation and enforcement of these measures;
89. Calls on the Commission to present an evaluation report on the Cybersecurity Act and to propose a legislative act to review it in order to strengthen the EU’s cybersecurity framework, with a particular focus on the interplay between sovereignty and security; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to enhance the protection of strategic and critical infrastructure and prevent foreign interference from entities subject to extraterritorial legislation, as well as accelerating the adoption process for EU cybersecurity certification schemes; calls for ENISA’s mandate to be strengthened to coordinate crisis response, oversee cybersecurity certification for critical infrastructure and ensure uniform implementation of cybersecurity standards across the single market;
90. Emphasises the importance of the upcoming European internal security strategy in strengthening cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection;
91. Notes with concern that, according to the second report on Member States’ progress in implementing the EU toolbox on 5G cybersecurity, 14 Member States have yet to implement any restrictions on high-risk suppliers, posing significant security vulnerabilities; calls for the full implementation of the EU toolbox for 5G security in order to reduce reliance on high-risk vendors; calls on the Commission to make the toolbox binding, specifically with regard to high-risk vendors in critical infrastructure;
Simplification
92. Notes that to achieve true technological sovereignty, the EU must have viable commercial alternatives; stresses that the EU must urgently pursue a comprehensive agenda of simplification and bureaucracy reduction to foster an innovation-friendly environment capable of supporting competitive European alternatives to dominant global digital players; underlines that excessive administrative burdens, fragmented regulatory frameworks, an incomplete digital single market and overly complex compliance procedures disproportionately impact European start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs, limiting their capacity to compete at global level; recognises that the EU should therefore prioritise regulatory streamlining and the deepening of the digital single market, ensuring that legislation is proportionate, innovation-driven and does not stifle the development of European technological solutions;
93. Emphasises the need for new legislative proposals to be aligned with better regulation principles, ensuring that any new digital policy measure that affects competitiveness is accompanied by an impact assessment, including a competitiveness, SME and small mid-cap check that evaluates whether a given legislative instrument is necessary, proportionate and does not create unnecessary burdens for businesses, especially SMEs, and thus its effects on competitiveness, investment prospects and consumer welfare;
94. Highlights that the simplification of EU legislation must not endanger any of the fundamental rights of citizens and businesses and thus jeopardise regulatory certainty; believes that any simplification proposal should not be rushed or proposed without proper consideration, consultation and an impact assessment;
95. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to fully implement the principle of burden reduction for companies in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, therefore, to enhance its efforts by aiming to remove more cost and administrative burdens for businesses compared to the benefits that would be derived from any new regulatory requirements introduced at EU level in the same policy area, so that barriers to market entry are removed to help European companies to scale and grow;
96. Calls on the Commission to ensure consistent simplification, implementation and enforcement of EU digital legislation through the Digital Package, streamlining definitions and reporting procedures, assessing ways to alleviate reporting obligations and reducing the gap between industry and government;
97. Believes that supporting companies and innovators to stay in Europe by developing the EU as an attractive and agile business environment is key to enhancing technological sovereignty; emphasises, in that regard, that excessive regulation and administrative burdens should be avoided and that EU rules should be clear, consistent, predictable, proportionate and technologically neutral, thus maintaining a globally competitive regulatory environment; believes that new public procurement methods and the development of regulatory sandboxes and test beds should also contribute to an innovation-friendly framework;
98. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of a 28th legal regime, recognising that a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules will be a game changer for digital investment and innovation; believes that reducing regulatory fragmentation across 27 national legal regimes will boost private investment, lower compliance costs and accelerate the deployment of next-generation digital infrastructure, products and services; encourages the Commission to ensure that this framework specifically addresses regulatory barriers in the digital sector, such as permitting and cross-border data flows, in order to create a true digital single market;
99. Urges the Commission to create a single point of contact to simplify the application process for private-sector access to EU funding mechanisms, ensuring that private companies, SMEs and start-ups can more easily participate in digital investment programmes;
Energy
100. Emphasises that data centres will put additional pressure on electricity grids, making it imperative to reinforce them through anticipatory investments; stresses that data centres can also help stabilise the grid by participating in demand-side flexibility; calls for measures to incentivise such contributions based on the implementation of the revision of the European electricity market reform;
101. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to propose and implement instruments that ensure orderly planning of the escalating energy demand from data centres, facilitating their strategic placement near available energy sources and thus minimising reliance on the broader grid infrastructure;
102. Recognises that fibre is more energy efficient than traditional copper networks; acknowledges the importance of reducing energy consumption in data transmission and ensuring long-term stability and efficiency;
103. Calls on the Commission to ensure a reliable and sufficient clean energy and net-zero technology supply to support the digital infrastructure of the future;
Skills
104. Recognises the urgent need for more skilled professionals in digital fields to meet the EU’s strategic objectives; calls on the Member States to develop national strategies and incentives to retain European talent and attract the world’s best digital professionals, thereby strengthening the EU’s innovation capacity and technological leadership;
105. Stresses the importance of closing the digital and STEM skills gap to enhance technological resilience, innovation capacity and open strategic autonomy; calls on the Member States to strengthen investments in digital education, upskilling and reskilling, particularly in areas essential for the green and digital transitions; supports prioritising investments that address digital skills shortages, particularly in AI, cybersecurity, data analysis and clean technologies, in order to support innovation and technological sovereignty;
106. Calls for coordinated strategies at national level to improve access to high-quality STEM education, promote lifelong learning and attract talent to ICT and related fields; encourages partnerships between public institutions, industry and educational providers to ensure alignment between curricula and evolving market needs;
107. Calls for intensified efforts to improve digital literacy and skills across all demographics, focusing on early STEM education, vocational education and training, and lifelong learning in digital technologies; recommends aligning national education and training strategies with the EU Digital Decade goal of 80 % of the population possessing basic digital skills by 2030, with a focus on gender-inclusive policies to increase women’s participation in ICT and STEM fields; calls on the EU institutions to take concrete steps to uphold the commitments referred to in the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade, both within the EU framework as in the Union’s cooperation with third countries;
108. Supports the establishment of a common EU certification framework for digital and technical skills to improve the recognition and portability of qualifications among the Member States;
109. Encourages the European Investment Bank and national development institutions to support digital talent retention by co-investing in European deep-tech start-ups, ensuring that EU-funded innovation remains within the region and contributes to Europe’s technological sovereignty;
Research and innovation
110. Recognises the importance of bridging the gap between research and commercialisation and calls on the Commission to enhance the valorisation of innovation within the EU;
111. Believes that Europe’s ability to transform research into market-ready solutions is critical for building necessary capabilities and reducing reliance on non-EU technologies;
112. Emphasises that funding needs to be strategically allocated to accelerate the development and market introduction of solutions that strengthen Europe’s technological resilience and drive innovation; underlines the importance of a more agile, excellence-based funding structure, particularly in improving the translation of research into industrial applications; calls for increased investment in R&I to strengthen Europe’s knowledge and technological capabilities and insists that EU research, development and innovation (RDI) funding be based on open competition and excellence;
113. Highlights the need for policies that support industrial innovation, including targeted investment in key strategic technologies where Europe can lead globally, such as quantum computing, in order to build an innovation ecosystem;
114. Believes that private investment in RDI is of utmost importance and calls for the EU to create incentives that effectively leverage private funding for the development of critical technologies, including through public-private partnerships;
115. Stresses the urgent need for stronger incentives to mobilise private sector capital for technology-driven innovation; encourages the Member States to introduce targeted fiscal incentives, regulatory simplification and risk-sharing instruments designed to attract private equity to the technology and digital sectors; highlights the need to streamline cross-border capital flows within the single market to facilitate access to finance for innovative European start-ups;
Standards
116. Strongly believes that promoting interoperability and EU standards is paramount to fostering competitiveness in the technology sector, as it ensures that products can be connected and work with each other, thus fostering innovation and open markets; recalls that both interoperability and common technological standards pave the way for the functioning of the single market;
117. Underlines that the Commission must increase its engagement in existing global standardisation structures and focus on the international uptake of European standards through a bottom-up approach, avoiding centralisation;
Partnerships
118. Welcomes the EU’s commitment to negotiating DTAs that facilitate secure and competitive digital infrastructure development with partner countries; encourages the Commission to increase efforts in negotiating DTAs with additional partner countries;
119. Calls on the Commission to accelerate technical cooperation in multilateral forums such as the G7, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Trade Organization (WTO) so as to develop global standards for digital governance, AI regulation, cross-border data flows and emerging technologies;
120. Urges the Commission to advance negotiations on a permanent solution to the WTO moratorium on e-commerce to prevent the introduction of digital tariffs, ensuring international digital trade remains open, predictable and conducive to innovation;
°
° °
121. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Woo Soo Kim, Professor, Mechatronic Systems Engineering & Founding Director, Global Institute for Agritech, Simon Fraser University
There is a growing and urgent need to address global food insecurity. This urgency is underscored by reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which states that nearly 828 million people suffer from hunger worldwide.
Climate change is further escalating these issues, disrupting traditional farming systems and emphasizing the need for smarter, resource-efficient solutions.
But imagine a future where indoor farming systems can operate entirely on their own, managing water, nutrients and environmental conditions without human oversight. Such autonomous systems, driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and powered by robotics, could revolutionize how we produce food, especially in regions with limited arable land.
Tackling food and water insecurity requires innovative solutions like precision agriculture, using AI and robotics to foster sustainable development.
My research team at Simon Fraser University’s (SFU) School of Mechatronics Systems Engineering has developed a prototype of an AI-powered sensing robot capable of autonomously monitoring the water needs of tomato plants.
In conventional greenhouses, several water management techniques are used to enhance efficiency and minimize waste. These include drip irrigation and using soil moisture sensors and automated irrigation systems.
Despite their effectiveness, these methods have limitations in responsiveness and accuracy, and can lead to over- or under-watering, wasting resources and impacting crop health.
Agriculture takes up the vast majority of the water humanity uses. As water scarcity affects over two billion people worldwide, it is critical to find innovative ways to more efficiently use water.
At SFU, we’ve built an innovative robot that uses electrical signals from plants, also known as plant electrophysiology responses, as real-time indicators of plant health and hydration needs. The system integrates advanced AI algorithms to interpret these signals and determine when water should be supplied.
This technology eliminates the traditional guesswork and manual labour involved in irrigation, promoting efficient water use and reducing waste while optimizing plant health.
Recent research highlights the potential of integrating AI innovations into agriculture. AI-powered systems can significantly improve water efficiency, reduce chemical runoff and optimize crop yields.
Advances in robotics are also facilitating non-invasive and continuous monitoring of plant health, enabling interventions that are both precise and timely.
Recent advances in plant physiological signal monitoring have shown that sensors capable of capturing electrical signals reflecting plant stress, hydration and overall health can provide highly specific, real-time data.
Our non-invasive sensing robot improves this process by enabling continuous and efficient monitoring of plant health, making automation more responsive and effective.
When combined with AI, these signals enable precision watering that is dynamically adapted to the plant’s actual needs, representing a significant leap in intelligent plant care.
Furthermore, recent innovations using multi-spectral imaging and machine learning have vastly improved our ability to detect disease and when plants are stressed. This can be integrated with electrical sensing robots like ours to develop comprehensive systems to monitor plant health.
With these improvements fully autonomous agriculture is becoming feasible. This technology goes beyond irrigation, using robotic sensing to interpret plant signals and enable autonomous nutrient management and environmental monitoring.
These multifunctional robots aim to optimize resource use, reduce waste, and increase crop yields, supporting global food security through holistic plant health management.
Our prototype shows promise in greenhouses. However, the real potential of AI water management lies in scalable, adaptable solutions. Addressing global food and water security requires international collaboration to share knowledge, technology and develop region-specific strategies for areas impacted by scarcity and climate change.
In recent years, our team has engaged deeply with agricultural communities in Tanzania and Asia-Pacific nations such as Singapore, Philippines, Japan and South Korea, understanding their unique challenges.
These regions face acute water shortages, limited access to sophisticated technology and the adverse impacts of climate change. To be effective, solutions developed in controlled environments must be adapted and made accessible to farmers.
This means developing sensor tools that are affordable and simple to use, and scalable AI and robotic systems that can operate effectively under variable environmental and infrastructural conditions.
International collaboration plays a vital role here. Sharing knowledge through cross-border research partnerships, capacity-building programs and technology transfer initiatives can accelerate the deployment of smart agriculture solutions worldwide.
The Food and Agriculture Organization, the Association of Pacific Rim Universities and the World Bank are actively fostering such collaborations, emphasizing that sustainable agriculture progress depends on integrating cutting-edge technology with local knowledge.
Our goal is to develop affordable, easy-to-deploy AI sensing robots for smallholder farms that can provide real-time plant monitoring to reduce waste and improve yields.
These systems can foster resilient farming ecosystems, and contribute toward meeting the UN’s sustainable development goal of ending hunger and malnutrition.
Ultimately, scaling prototypes like ours from greenhouses to global agriculture requires strong international collaboration. Supportive policies and knowledge sharing will accelerate the deployment of intelligent water management systems. This will empower farmers globally to achieve more sustainable and resilient food production.
Woo Soo Kim receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Mitacs.
– ref. Autonomous AI systems can help tackle global food insecurity – https://theconversation.com/autonomous-ai-systems-can-help-tackle-global-food-insecurity-258788
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Diana Harshbarger (R-TN)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), a practicing pharmacist before being elected to Congress, and U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) reintroduced the bipartisan Prescription Information Modernization Act. This legislation would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to move forward with a proposed rule allowing drug manufacturers to transmit prescribing information electronically to doctors and pharmacists, as opposed to printed copy, as currently required.
“Pharmacists and physicians deserve timely, accurate data when making decisions that impact patient health, not pages of printed material that often arrive late and are immediately discarded,” said Rep. Harshbarger. “This bipartisan bill is a practical update that empowers healthcare professionals with real-time digital access, cuts waste, and ensures patients are receiving the most up-to-date information. Thank you to my colleague, Representative Sherrill for working with me to bring prescribing information into the 21st century.”
“I’m focused on improving our healthcare system to ensure healthcare providers are able to provide the best possible care to patients. Under outdated rules, providers are prohibited from receiving prescribing information for medications digitally. This legislation would finally modernize our system, allowing pharmacists to access real-time updates on prescription medications that will ensure they can dispense medicines to patients safely while reducing waste at the same time.” said Rep. Sherrill.
Under the current policy, which has not been updated since 1962, prescribing information sent to providers that contain important information related to a specific drug must be printed, running an average of 45 pages per prescription. This information is not intended for patients but rather contains the drug’s chemical makeup and information that informs a healthcare professional on the drug’s interaction with other drugs. In 2014, the FDA proposed a rule that would allow the electronic distribution of prescribing information. Since then, Congress has used the appropriations process to prevent the agency from finalizing that rule, requiring the bulky paper labels to be printed and distributed, even though many are immediately discarded by healthcare professionals for being outdated.
The Harshbarger-Sherrill legislation would give healthcare professionals the option to choose how they receive prescribing information. In most cases, healthcare professionals choose to receive the information digitally because the information is available in real-time. Printed information takes approximately 8-12 months from printing to shipment, and information is often outdated by the time it reaches the recipient.
This legislation has drawn support from leading pharmacy and healthcare advocacy organizations, including the Alliance to Modernize Prescribing Information (AMPI) and the following groups: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), Allergy & Asthma Network, American Pharmacists Association, AmGen, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Association for Accessible Medicines, Beyond Type 1, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BioNJ, BioUtah, Boomer Esiason Foundation, Environmental Paper Network, Georgia Bio, Healthcare Distribution Alliance, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, LUNGevity Foundation, Lupin, Maryland Tech Council, MassBio, McKesson, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Consumers League, National Grange, NewYorkBIO, North Carolina Biosciences Organization, Texas Healthcare and Biosciences Institute, and Zero Cancer.
Additional sponsors of this legislation include Reps. David Valadao (R-CA), Don Davis (D-NC), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Scott Peters (D-CA), Julia Letlow (R-LA), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Steve Womack (R-AR), and Paul Tonko (D-NY).
You can read the full bill text HERE.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex
During Donald Trump’s first term, he made clear that he wanted his foreign policy to be as unpredictable as possible, stating: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”
With the US’s recent attack on Iran, Trump certainly kept everyone in suspense. While US enemies may not have known what Trump was thinking, the problem was neither did US allies nor US legislators. Trump apparently did not bother to inform his own vice-president, J.D. Vance, when he had made the decision.
Trump has portrayed this as a strength, that he is the only one capable of getting certain things done in foreign policy because his unpredictability and risk-taking behaviour gives him more leverage.
But thus far he has had fewer successes than wins with this approach. His dalliance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Trump’s first term only resulted in the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear programme.
His great relationship with Vladimir Putin has so far led to no concessions from Moscow regarding the war in Ukraine, even causing Trump to effectively give up trying to resolve that crisis, at least for now.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In Trump’s second term his Maga base has been a bit more divided than in his first. On the issue of tariffs, key Republican senators begged him to backpedal with concerns that the new tariffs would be catastrophic for the US economy – one of the issues that propelled him to victory. Yet he went ahead with the tariffs anyway, as some members of his base were in support.
With the Middle East crisis, Trump supporters appeared to be mostly against the US getting involved in a foreign conflict, with “no more wars” being a common slogan on the campaign trail.
In the lead up to the US strikes, key leaders in the Maga movement criticised the idea of the US getting involved in the conflict. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson told hawkish Senator Ted Cruz that he should know far more about the regime that the senator wanted to topple. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Representative Marjorie Taylor Green were also calling for the US to stay out of the conflict.
Before the attacks, a YouGov poll showed that 60% of Americans did not want the US to get involved in the conflict, which has since increased to 80%. However when asked more specifically about support for US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as many as 94% of Maga Republicans gave their approval.
Trump also believes he can sell the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a huge win, making good on his promise to eradicate Iran’s nuclear programme. The US intelligence community is saying otherwise, but Trump has rejected this.
Trump took an early victory lap, claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme had been “completely destroyed”. It was arguably comparable to George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May 2003, after Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was ousted by US-led forces. Bush’s approval ratings were as high as 70% in the immediate aftermath, but had plunged by 40 points by 2008 after five years of fighting the Iraqi insurgency that emerged in Hussein’s absence.
Trump seems to be revelling in taking more risks and being more unpredictable. As he has become increasingly bold in his second term, he has been more willing to test the loyalty of his base when they don’t agree with his instincts. Though the isolationist wing of Maga has been critical, Trump assumes that his base will unite and rally around him.
Trump was more careful to not betray his base in his first term. Trump had ordered strikes on Iran in 2019, but backed down at the last minute. But now he has gone so far as to suggest the door may be open to regime change in Tehran.
With the ceasefire now in place (at least in theory), Trump is heralding his action as a huge win. Iran has backed down after a limited attack on its nuclear facilities.
Just weeks ago, the US seemed less relevant in the Middle East, and more likely to follow Israel’s instructions than the other way around. With Trump’s confidence growing, it is now Trump that is telling Israel that he is not happy.
For Trump the risks involved were huge. There may appear to be the potential for some short-term domestic political gains if the ceasefire holds. But Trump may not have thought through the long-term implications of his decision on stability in the Middle East more generally, or what voters will think about his foreign policy gambles when the next election rolls around.
Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds? – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-high-risk-iran-strategy-pay-dividends-at-home-if-the-peace-deal-holds-259736
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex
During Donald Trump’s first term, he made clear that he wanted his foreign policy to be as unpredictable as possible, stating: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”
With the US’s recent attack on Iran, Trump certainly kept everyone in suspense. While US enemies may not have known what Trump was thinking, the problem was neither did US allies nor US legislators. Trump apparently did not bother to inform his own vice-president, J.D. Vance, when he had made the decision.
Trump has portrayed this as a strength, that he is the only one capable of getting certain things done in foreign policy because his unpredictability and risk-taking behaviour gives him more leverage.
But thus far he has had fewer successes than wins with this approach. His dalliance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Trump’s first term only resulted in the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear programme.
His great relationship with Vladimir Putin has so far led to no concessions from Moscow regarding the war in Ukraine, even causing Trump to effectively give up trying to resolve that crisis, at least for now.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In Trump’s second term his Maga base has been a bit more divided than in his first. On the issue of tariffs, key Republican senators begged him to backpedal with concerns that the new tariffs would be catastrophic for the US economy – one of the issues that propelled him to victory. Yet he went ahead with the tariffs anyway, as some members of his base were in support.
With the Middle East crisis, Trump supporters appeared to be mostly against the US getting involved in a foreign conflict, with “no more wars” being a common slogan on the campaign trail.
In the lead up to the US strikes, key leaders in the Maga movement criticised the idea of the US getting involved in the conflict. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson told hawkish Senator Ted Cruz that he should know far more about the regime that the senator wanted to topple. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Representative Marjorie Taylor Green were also calling for the US to stay out of the conflict.
Before the attacks, a YouGov poll showed that 60% of Americans did not want the US to get involved in the conflict, which has since increased to 80%. However when asked more specifically about support for US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as many as 94% of Maga Republicans gave their approval.
Trump also believes he can sell the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a huge win, making good on his promise to eradicate Iran’s nuclear programme. The US intelligence community is saying otherwise, but Trump has rejected this.
Trump took an early victory lap, claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme had been “completely destroyed”. It was arguably comparable to George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May 2003, after Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was ousted by US-led forces. Bush’s approval ratings were as high as 70% in the immediate aftermath, but had plunged by 40 points by 2008 after five years of fighting the Iraqi insurgency that emerged in Hussein’s absence.
Trump seems to be revelling in taking more risks and being more unpredictable. As he has become increasingly bold in his second term, he has been more willing to test the loyalty of his base when they don’t agree with his instincts. Though the isolationist wing of Maga has been critical, Trump assumes that his base will unite and rally around him.
Trump was more careful to not betray his base in his first term. Trump had ordered strikes on Iran in 2019, but backed down at the last minute. But now he has gone so far as to suggest the door may be open to regime change in Tehran.
With the ceasefire now in place (at least in theory), Trump is heralding his action as a huge win. Iran has backed down after a limited attack on its nuclear facilities.
Just weeks ago, the US seemed less relevant in the Middle East, and more likely to follow Israel’s instructions than the other way around. With Trump’s confidence growing, it is now Trump that is telling Israel that he is not happy.
For Trump the risks involved were huge. There may appear to be the potential for some short-term domestic political gains if the ceasefire holds. But Trump may not have thought through the long-term implications of his decision on stability in the Middle East more generally, or what voters will think about his foreign policy gambles when the next election rolls around.
Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds? – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-high-risk-iran-strategy-pay-dividends-at-home-if-the-peace-deal-holds-259736
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simona Grasso, Assistant Professor & Ad Astra Fellow in Food Science and Nutrition, University College Dublin
Whether customers are pleased to hear it or not, firms are selling “upcycled” food to tackle food waste internationally.
Food with ingredients that were saved from the waste heap via verifiable supply chains is said to be “upcycled”. The term originated in the US, though it’s also been adopted on this side of the Atlantic.
This rather broad definition includes byproducts from the food industry, such as spent grains left over from beer manufacturing, or apple pulp that doesn’t make it into juice.
If you’re not familiar with the idea, perhaps you have already bought upcycled produce in the form of wonky carrots and potatoes. This is food that does not meet the visual standards of most supermarkets but is nevertheless still tasty to eat. Elsewhere, food manufacturers are making products that include upcycled ingredients.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Why upcycle food in the first place? The US Environmental Protection Agency rates it as just as effective as donating or redistributing food to restaurants and shelters for reducing the environmental impact of the food system. Wasted food, after all, can generate potent greenhouse gases such as methane if left to rot in landfills.
So it’s good for the planet if ingredients that would not have gone to human consumption are transformed into new food-grade products. But just how good exactly?
How much of a product contains upcycled ingredients will influence its sustainability credentials. If they are listed at the beginning of the ingredients on the packaging then that indicates a large percentage of inclusion. Far down at the bottom suggests a smaller percentage.
Of course, there is only so much of an upcycled ingredient that can be added to food before it affects the colour, taste or flavour of the final product. It is important to keep a balance.
According to the US upcycled food certification standard, a product only needs to contain a minimum of 10% upcycled inputs by weight in order to be certified as upcycled. This may only make a slight difference to a single product’s overall sustainability.
Compare it with organic food. Both in the US and in the EU, a product must contain a minimum of 95% of certified organic ingredients to be labelled organic. The EU loosely defines “organic” as food that “respects the environment and animal welfare”.
This is very far from the 10% required by the certified standard for upcycling used in the US. Of course, it would be quite hard to make an upcycled product with at least 95% upcycled ingredients. Think about a biscuit. Most of the major ingredients – flour, butter, sugar – would need to be upcycled. On the other hand, would 10% be enough to encourage you to buy food certified as upcycled?
While I believe that attempts to include upcycled ingredients in food formulations should be encouraged, however big or small, it is important to have rules in place.
In the EU, upcycled foods are not regulated and there are no certification standards, though some product packaging may claim it contains upcycled ingredients. Consumers might buy a product with a sprinkling of upcycled ingredients thinking that it is a more sustainable choice.
For example, a loaf of bread recently sold in Tesco was reported to contain 2.5% spent grain by weight. In other cases, the level of inclusion appears to be quite substantial. Granola sold in Ireland claims 30% spent grain from brewers, but it is not clearly stated in the ingredient list.
Often, consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled food, even though it contains ingredients that would have otherwise gone to waste. This is because the producers are often small start-ups with high production costs that they must recoup with high prices.
If sustainability claims are at stake, and if consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled foods, it is important to prevent deceptive marketing that could present products as more sustainable than they actually are. One way to do so is by carrying out a life-cycle assessment, a measurement of a product’s environmental impact from its production to its disposal. The manufacturer could do this as a way of reassuring the consumer and backing up any claims with evidence.
If we want upcycled foods to become more common, and so reduce waste, we have to make sure consumers aren’t being misled. If consumers trust, value and understand these products, they are more likely to succeed in the market.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
Simona Grasso does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. ‘Upcycled’ food is on the rise – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/upcycled-food-is-on-the-rise-heres-what-you-need-to-know-253306
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simona Grasso, Assistant Professor & Ad Astra Fellow in Food Science and Nutrition, University College Dublin
Whether customers are pleased to hear it or not, firms are selling “upcycled” food to tackle food waste internationally.
Food with ingredients that were saved from the waste heap via verifiable supply chains is said to be “upcycled”. The term originated in the US, though it’s also been adopted on this side of the Atlantic.
This rather broad definition includes byproducts from the food industry, such as spent grains left over from beer manufacturing, or apple pulp that doesn’t make it into juice.
If you’re not familiar with the idea, perhaps you have already bought upcycled produce in the form of wonky carrots and potatoes. This is food that does not meet the visual standards of most supermarkets but is nevertheless still tasty to eat. Elsewhere, food manufacturers are making products that include upcycled ingredients.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Why upcycle food in the first place? The US Environmental Protection Agency rates it as just as effective as donating or redistributing food to restaurants and shelters for reducing the environmental impact of the food system. Wasted food, after all, can generate potent greenhouse gases such as methane if left to rot in landfills.
So it’s good for the planet if ingredients that would not have gone to human consumption are transformed into new food-grade products. But just how good exactly?
How much of a product contains upcycled ingredients will influence its sustainability credentials. If they are listed at the beginning of the ingredients on the packaging then that indicates a large percentage of inclusion. Far down at the bottom suggests a smaller percentage.
Of course, there is only so much of an upcycled ingredient that can be added to food before it affects the colour, taste or flavour of the final product. It is important to keep a balance.
According to the US upcycled food certification standard, a product only needs to contain a minimum of 10% upcycled inputs by weight in order to be certified as upcycled. This may only make a slight difference to a single product’s overall sustainability.
Compare it with organic food. Both in the US and in the EU, a product must contain a minimum of 95% of certified organic ingredients to be labelled organic. The EU loosely defines “organic” as food that “respects the environment and animal welfare”.
This is very far from the 10% required by the certified standard for upcycling used in the US. Of course, it would be quite hard to make an upcycled product with at least 95% upcycled ingredients. Think about a biscuit. Most of the major ingredients – flour, butter, sugar – would need to be upcycled. On the other hand, would 10% be enough to encourage you to buy food certified as upcycled?
While I believe that attempts to include upcycled ingredients in food formulations should be encouraged, however big or small, it is important to have rules in place.
In the EU, upcycled foods are not regulated and there are no certification standards, though some product packaging may claim it contains upcycled ingredients. Consumers might buy a product with a sprinkling of upcycled ingredients thinking that it is a more sustainable choice.
For example, a loaf of bread recently sold in Tesco was reported to contain 2.5% spent grain by weight. In other cases, the level of inclusion appears to be quite substantial. Granola sold in Ireland claims 30% spent grain from brewers, but it is not clearly stated in the ingredient list.
Often, consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled food, even though it contains ingredients that would have otherwise gone to waste. This is because the producers are often small start-ups with high production costs that they must recoup with high prices.
If sustainability claims are at stake, and if consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled foods, it is important to prevent deceptive marketing that could present products as more sustainable than they actually are. One way to do so is by carrying out a life-cycle assessment, a measurement of a product’s environmental impact from its production to its disposal. The manufacturer could do this as a way of reassuring the consumer and backing up any claims with evidence.
If we want upcycled foods to become more common, and so reduce waste, we have to make sure consumers aren’t being misled. If consumers trust, value and understand these products, they are more likely to succeed in the market.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
Simona Grasso does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. ‘Upcycled’ food is on the rise – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/upcycled-food-is-on-the-rise-heres-what-you-need-to-know-253306
