Skip to content
EU Parl Watch

, Agriculture, food & fisheries

The role of social, economic and environmental standards in safeguarding fair competition for all aquatic food products and improving food security

Adopted by a large majority

Parliament adopted the text as its official position.

For
467
Against
92
Abstained
44

roll-call vote at 13:26 · 77% of votes cast in favour

Committee report by Paulo do Nascimento Cabral · Report A-10-2026-0205

AI:What this decision does

Parliament adopted a resolution on the role of social, economic and environmental standards in safeguarding fair competition for all aquatic food products and improving food security.§1: source passage in the text The text sets out Parliament's position that aquatic food products entering the EU should meet the same or equivalent standards required of EU fishers and producers, to avoid unfair competition and artificially lowered prices.§1: source passage in the text§2: source passage in the text It also calls for stronger customs controls in ports and airports, full use of the eCatch system for traceability, and registration of all imports of fisheries products from non-cooperative countries.§2: source passage in the text Parliament asks for a stamp assuring equivalent conditions to European Quality Schemes for imported products, and for greater autonomy for the outermost regions in the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, including re-establishing POSEI – Fisheries.§2: source passage in the text

Written by AI from the text voted on · counts are the official record · Read the text · Report a problem

How the groups voted

For: S&D, EPP, ECR, Patriots, ESN; Against: Greens; Divided: The Left, Renew

  • The Left Divided 2 for, 19 against, 13 abstainedof 44
  • Greens Against 5 for, 42 against, 1 abstainedof 53
  • S&D For 102 for, 13 against, 0 abstainedof 135
  • Renew Divided 42 for, 6 against, 18 abstainedof 78
  • EPP For 152 for, 0 against, 0 abstainedof 184
  • ECR For 69 for, 4 against, 0 abstainedof 84
  • Patriots For 60 for, 0 against, 8 abstainedof 85
  • ESN For 22 for, 0 against, 2 abstainedof 27
  • No group not a group 13 for, 8 against, 2 abstainedof 28

Groups from left to right · for–against–abstained, of the group’s MEPs

A group is shown as divided when no position has two thirds of its votes.

Did not vote with their group

33 MEPs voted differently from their group’s clear line (two thirds of its votes).

Groups as they are now; members who changed group are compared with their current one.

Find an MEP

Opens the list of MEPs on the vote page, filtered to the country you pick.

How each of the 603 MEPs voted →

Go deeper