Thirty-six million Europeans — including more than one million in the Nordics[1] — live with a rare disease.[2] For patients and their families, this is not just a medical challenge; it is a human rights issue. Diagnostic delays mean years of worsening health and needless suffering. Where treatments exist, access is far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, breakthroughs in genomics, AI and targeted therapies are transforming what is possible in health care. But without streamlined systems, innovations risk piling up at the gates of regulators, leaving patients waiting. Even the Nordics, which have some of the strongest health systems in the world, struggle to provide fair and consistent access for rare-disease patients. Expectations should be higher. THE BURDEN OF DELAY The toll of rare diseases is profound. People living with them report health-related quality-of-life scores 32 percent lower than those without. Economically, the annual cost per patient in Europe — including caregivers — is around €121,900.[3] > Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and > patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. In Sweden, the figure is slightly lower at €118,000, but this is still six times higher than for patients without a rare disease. Most of this burden (65 percent) is direct medical costs, although non-medical expenses and lost productivity also weigh heavily. Caregivers, for instance, lose almost 10 times more work hours than peers supporting patients without a rare disease.[4] This burden can be reduced. European patients with access to an approved medicine face average annual costs of €107,000.[5] Yet delays remain the norm. Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. With health innovation accelerating, each new therapy risks compounding inequity unless access pathways are modernized. PROGRESS AND REMAINING BARRIERS Patients today have a better chance than ever of receiving a diagnosis — and in some cases, life-changing therapies. The Nordics in particular are leaders in integrated research and clinical models, building world-class diagnostics and centers of excellence. > Without reform, patients risk being left behind. But advances are not reaching everyone who needs them. Systemic barriers persist: * Disparities across Europe: Less than 10 percent of rare-disease patients have access to an approved treatment.[6] According to the Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator (2025), there are stark differences in access to new orphan medicines (or drugs that target rare diseases).[7] Of the 66 orphan medicines approved between 2020 and 2023, the average number available across Europe was 28. Among the Nordics, only Denmark exceeded this with 34. * Fragmented decision-making: Lengthy health technology assessments, regional variation and shifting political priorities often delay or restrict access. Across Europe, patients wait a median of 531 days from marketing authorization to actual availability. For many orphan drugs, the wait is even longer. In some countries, such as Norway and Poland, reimbursement decisions take more than two years, leaving patients without treatment while the burden of disease grows.[8] * Funding gaps: Despite more therapies on the market and greater technology to develop them, orphan medicines account for just 6.6 percent of pharmaceutical budgets and 1.2 percent of health budgets in Europe. Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway and Finland — spend a smaller share than peers such as France or Belgium. This reflects policy choices, not financial capacity.[9] If Europe struggles with access today, it risks being overwhelmed tomorrow. Rare-disease patients — already facing some of the longest delays — cannot afford for systems to fall farther behind. EASING THE BOTTLENECKS Policymakers, clinicians and patient advocates across the Nordics agree: the science is moving faster than the systems built to deliver it. Without reform, patients risk being left behind just as innovation is finally catching up to their needs. So what’s required? * Governance and reforms: Across the Nordics, rare-disease policy remains fragmented and time-limited. National strategies often expire before implementation, and responsibilities are divided among ministries, agencies and regional authorities. Experts stress that governments must move beyond pilot projects to create permanent frameworks — with ring-fenced funding, transparent accountability and clear leadership within ministries of health — to ensure sustained progress. * Patient organizations: Patient groups remain a driving force behind awareness, diagnosis and access, yet most operate on short-term or volunteer-based funding. Advocates argue that stable, structural support — including inclusion in formal policy processes and predictable financing — is critical to ensure patient perspectives shape decision-making on access, research and care pathways. * Health care pathways: Ann Nordgren, chair of the Rare Disease Fund and professor at Karolinska Institutet, notes that although Sweden has built a strong foundation — including Centers for Rare Diseases, Advanced Therapy (ATMP) and Precision Medicine Centers, and membership in all European Reference Networks — front-line capacity remains underfunded. “Government and hospital managements are not providing  resources to enable health care professionals to work hands-on with diagnostics, care and education,” she explains. “This is a big problem.” She adds that comprehensive rare-disease centers, where paid patient representatives collaborate directly with clinicians and researchers, would help bridge the gap between care and lived experience. * Research and diagnostics: Nordgren also points to the need for better long-term investment in genomic medicine and data infrastructure. Sweden is a leader in diagnostics through Genomic Medicine Sweden and SciLifeLab, but funding for advanced genomic testing, especially for adults, remains limited. “Many rare diseases still lack sufficient funding for basic and translational research,” she says, leading to delays in identifying genetic causes and developing targeted therapies. She argues for a national health care data platform integrating electronic records, omics (biological) data and patient-reported outcomes — built with semantic standards such as openEHR and SNOMED CT — to enable secure sharing, AI-driven discovery and patient access to their own data DELIVERING BREAKTHROUGHS Breakthroughs are coming. The question is whether Europe will be ready to deliver them equitably and at speed, or whether patients will continue to wait while therapies sit on the shelf. There is reason for optimism. The Nordic region has the talent, infrastructure and tradition of fairness to set the European benchmark on rare-disease care. But leadership requires urgency, and collaboration across the EU will be essential to ensure solutions are shared and implemented across borders. The need for action is clear: * Establish long-term governance and funding for rare-disease infrastructure. * Provide stable, structural support for patient organizations. * Create clearer, better-coordinated care pathways. * Invest more in research, diagnostics and equitable access to innovative treatments. Early access is not only fair — it is cost-saving. Patients treated earlier incur lower indirect and non-medical costs over time.[10] Inaction, by contrast, compounds the burden for patients, families and health systems alike. Science will forge ahead. The task now is to sustain momentum and reform systems so that no rare-disease patient in the Nordics, or anywhere in Europe, is left waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [2] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [3] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [4] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [5] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [6] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/a-competitive-and-innovationled-europe-starts-with-rare-diseases? [7] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [8] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [9] https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Copenhagen-Economics_Spending-on-OMPs-across-Europe.pdf [10] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

LONDON — The Council of Europe’s most senior human rights official warned European leaders not to create a “hierarchy of people” as they pursue reforms to migration policy. Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, said “middle-of-the-road politicians” are playing into the hands of the populist right. His comments, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, come after 27 countries in the Council of Europe issued a statement Wednesday setting out how they want the European Convention on Human Rights to be applied by courts, including on familial ties and the risk of degrading treatment. The nations hope to reach a political declaration in spring 2026. O’Flaherty warned against any approach that would downgrade human rights, echoing calls he made in a speech to European ministers Wednesday morning. “The idea that we would create or foster the impression of a hierarchy of people, some more deserving than others, is a very, very worrying one indeed,” he said. He added: “For every inch yielded, there’s going to be another inch demanded,” telling the paper: “Where does it stop? For example, the focus right now is on migrants, in large part. But who is it going to be about next time around?” He also hit out at the “lazy correlation” of migration and crime which he said “doesn’t correspond with reality.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer and fellow center-left Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wrote in the Guardian Tuesday the best way of “fighting against the forces of hate and division” was showing “mainstream, progressive politics” could deal with the challenge. Britain’s chief interior minister Shabana Mahmood has proposed tougher policies for irregular migrants including a 20 year wait for permanent settlement and assessing refugee status every 30 months.

BRUSSELS — Britain’s chief foreign minister praised Donald Trump’s role in trying to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, despite fears he may lose interest in finding a settlement that is acceptable to Kyiv. In an interview with POLITICO after attending a conference with European partners on curbing illegal migration on Wednesday, Yvette Cooper denied that Trump’s unpredictability is making her job harder.  “Actually, it’s only because of the work that President Trump and the U.S. system have done that we have reached the ceasefire in Gaza,” the U.K. foreign secretary said, while also crediting nations including Egypt and Turkey. Her comments came after Trump attacked efforts by European leaders to end the war, saying in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for her podcast The Conversation: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” Trump also renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections, ratcheting up pressure on President Volodomyr Zelenskyy as he seeks to turn the page on a corruption scandal. Cooper insisted the U.S. is “very serious” about making progress in the current set of peace talks, following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday. “The work that the U.S. is doing to pursue a peace process is incredibly important, and the work that Marco Rubio has been doing as part of those discussions is also hugely important,” she added. Cooper suggested the U.S. would deliver on security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire, a key element of negotiations which have so far proved hard to pin down. “It can’t just be an agreement that means that Putin can just pause and then come again, and I think the U.S. are very clear about that,” she said. Trump’s virulent attack on European leaders — who he said were “weak” and presiding over “decaying” nations due to mass migration — did not come up during her meetings on Wednesday, which included talks with European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner and Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, Cooper said. Cooper announced earlier Wednesday that the U.K. Foreign Office will double the size of its migration unit, which is involved in discussions around the return of migrants to other countries. The U.K. foreign secretary did not rule out taking up an offer by Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally, to conduct “pushbacks” of migrant boats in the English Channel. Such a move, never previously accepted by France, would involve British Border Force boats directing laden dinghies, bound for the U.K., to turn around at sea. Cooper suggested the U.K.’s focus is on French police, rather than pushback powers for the U.K. Border Force. “You’re seeing those boats set off. Once they’re in the water, then the previous rules have meant that the French police have not been able to actually take action. We need that to happen. That’s been agreed in principle. We need to see that in force,” she said. However, she declined to directly criticize the idea of pushback, which opponents argue could cause more migrants to drown in the Channel. “Everything has to be safely done,” Cooper told POLITICO, “but there are ways of making sure that the French authorities and the U.K. authorities are always cooperating on making sure that things are safe. “The U.K. will always do its bit to help those who fled persecution and conflict, but we also have to be able to do more returns and more law enforcement, and we’ll always look at different ways to do that.” Asked again if pushback was not “totally off the table,” Cooper — who was until recently Britain’s interior minister — replied: “We will look at any mechanism that can work effectively and also can work safely. “Because what we want to see is action that prevents these dangerous boat crossings — because lives are being put at risk every time people get into those dangerous small boats and criminal gangs are making hundreds of millions of pounds of profit.” Cooper spoke as U.K. Justice Secretary David Lammy attended parallel talks in Strasbourg with European allies on reforming the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to remove some legal hurdles to deporting migrants. European foreign ministers are due to meet in May 2026 to take “the next steps forward” on ECHR reform, Cooper said. Illegal immigration is “deeply damaging” and causes a “deep sense of injustice that people feel if the law are not enforced,” Cooper said. but insisted: “Legal migration, on the other hand, has been part of our history for generations and will always be important.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called late Tuesday for a reform of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as European nations move to get tougher on migration. “The current asylum framework was created for another era. In a world with mass mobility, yesterday’s answers do not work. We will always protect those fleeing war and terror — but the world has changed and asylum systems must change with it,” Frederiksen and Starmer wrote in a joint op-ed for The Guardian. “Today, millions are on the move not only because their lives are in danger, but because they want a better future. If we fail to take account of this, we would fail the needs of genuine refugees and the communities that for too long have been asked to absorb rapid change,” they added. Their appeal takes on added significance after the EU overhauled its migration rules on Monday, which made Denmark’s tough approach to migration a standard for the bloc. Establishment political groups across Europe are struggling to deal with the rise of anti-migration parties, which have used the issue as electoral rocket fuel in recent years. Europe’s justice and home affairs ministers signed off on new policies that let EU countries deport unsuccessful asylum applicants, establish offshore processing centers and create removal hubs beyond EU territory. The U.K. overhauled its asylum system in a similar direction last month. Representatives from around 40 of the 46 Council of Europe members are expected to attend a meeting Wednesday on migration in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe — the continent’s leading human rights organization — wants to counter the narrative that the ECHR is standing in the way of action on migration, including returns. In May, 9 countries signed a letter calling for the ECHR — which came into force in 1953 — to be reinterpreted to allow migrants who commit crimes to be expelled more easily. “This is our chance to bring that discussion where it belongs — within the walls of the Council of Europe — and to chart a way forward,” the organization’s boss Alain Berset told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

LONDON — Australia hopes its teenage social media ban will create a domino effect around the world. Britain isn’t so sure.  As a new law banning under-16s from signing up to platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok comes into force today, U.K. lawmakers ten thousand miles away are watching closely, but not jumping in. “There are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. It’s important we protect children while letting them benefit safely from the digital world, without cutting off essential services or isolating the most vulnerable,” a No.10 spokesperson said Tuesday. Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents.  While England’s children’s commissioner and some MPs are supportive of a ban, neither the poll-topping Reform UK or opposition Conservative Party are pushing to mirror moves down under.  “We believe that bans are ineffective,” a Reform UK spokesperson said.  Even the usually Big Tech skeptic lobby groups have their doubts about the Australian model — despite strong public support to replicate the move in the U.K. Chris Sherwood, chief executive of the NSPCC, which has led the charge in pushing for tough regulation of social media companies over the last decade, said: “We must not punish young people for the failure of tech companies to create safe experiences online.  “Services must be accountable for knowing what content is being pushed out on their platforms and ensuring that young people can enjoy social media safely.” Andy Burrows, who leads the Molly Rose Foundation campaign group, argues the Australian approach is flawed and will push children to higher-risk platforms not included in the ban.  His charity was set up in 2018 in the name of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 while suffering from “depression and the negative effects of online content,” a coroner’s inquest concluded.  Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images “The quickest and most effective response to better protect children online is to strengthen regulation that directly addresses product safety and design risks rather than an overarching ban that comes with a slew of unintended consequences,” Burrows said.  “We need evidence-based approaches, not knee-jerk responses.” AUSSIE RULES Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. But insists: “We cannot control the ocean, but we can police the sharks.” She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.  “Parents shouldn’t have to fight billion-dollar companies to keep their kids safe online — the responsibility belongs with the platforms,” Inman Grant told Australia’s Happy Families podcast.  But the move does come with diplomatic peril. Inman Grant has not escaped the attention of the White House, which is pressuring countries to overturn tech regulations it views as unfairly targeting American companies.  U.S. congressman and Trump ally Jim Jordan has asked Inman Grant to testify before the Judiciary Committee he chairs, accusing her of being a “zealot for global [content] takedowns.” She hit back last week, describing the request as an example of territorial overreach.  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. It was the first to bring in a news media bargaining code to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers, and was the first major economy to rule out changing laws to let AI companies train on copyrighted material without permission. The U.K. has also upset the White House with its existing online safety measures, and the Trump administration said earlier this year it is monitoring freedom of speech concerns in the U.K. Australia is used to facing down the Big Tech lobby, explains Daniel Stone, who advised the ruling Labor Government on tech policy. “Julie has the benefit of knowing the [political] cabinet is fully supportive of her position,” he said. “It defines what’s permissible across the whole system.”  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images “If there is a lesson for the U.K., it is that you don’t have a strong regulator unless you have a strong political leader with a clear and consistent agenda,” Stone adds.  “Australia has its anxieties, too, about pushing U.S. tech companies, but they carry themselves with confidence,” said Stone. “You have to approach Trump from a position of strength.”  Rebecca Razavi, a former Australian diplomat, regulator and visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, agrees. “The thinking is, we’re a mid-sized economy and there’s this asymmetry with tech platforms dominating, and there’s actually a need to put things in place using an Australian approach to regulation,” she said.  Other countries, including Brazil, Malaysia and some European countries are moving in a similar direction. Last month the European Parliament called for a continent-wide age restriction on social media.  SLOW DOWN Others are biding their time.  The speed at which Australia’s social media ban was approved by parliament means that many of its pitfalls have not been explored, Razavi cautioned.  The legislation passed through parliament last December in 19 days with cross-party and wide public support. “It was really fast,” she said. “There was a feeling that this is something that parents care about. There’s also a deep frustration that the tech companies are just taking too long to make the reforms that are needed.”  But she added: “Some issues, such as how it works in practice, with age verification and data privacy are only being addressed now.”  Lizzie O’Shea, a human rights lawyer and founder of campaign group Digital Rights Watch, agreed. “There was very little time for consultation and engagement,” she said. “There has then subsequently been a lot of concerns about implementation. I worry about experimenting on particularly vulnerable people.”  For now, Britain and the world is watching to see if Australia’s new way to police social media delivers, or becomes an unworkable knee-jerk reaction. 

BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

Heidi Kingstone is a journalist and author covering human rights issues, conflict and politics. Her most recent book is “Genocide: Personal Stories, Big Questions.” Slavery is alive and thriving, and it’s wrapped inside shiny chocolate bars that promise to be “fair trade,” “child-labor free” and “sustainable.” In West Africa, which produces more than 60 percent of the world’s cocoa, over 1.5 million children still work under hazardous conditions. Kids, some as young as five, use machetes to crack pods open in their hands, carry loads that weigh more than they do and spray toxic pesticides without protection. Meanwhile, of the roughly 2 million metric tons of cocoa the Ivory Coast produces each year, between 20 percent and 30 percent is grown illegally in protected forests. And satellite data from Global Forest Watch shows an increase in deforestation across key cocoa-growing regions as farmers, desperate for income, push deeper into forest reserves. The bitter truth is that despite decades of pledges, certification schemes and packaging glowing with virtue — of forests saved, farmers empowered and consciences soothed — most chocolate companies have failed to eradicate exploitation from their supply chains. Today, many cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast and Ghana still earn less than a dollar a day, well below the poverty line. According to a 2024 report by the International Cocoa Initiative, the average farmer earns only 40 percent of a living wage. Put starkly, as the global chocolate market swells close to a $150 billion a year in 2025, the average farmer now receives less than 6 percent of the value of a single chocolate bar, whereas in the 1970s they received more than 50 percent. Then there’s the use of child labor, which is essentially woven into the fabric of this economy, where we have been sold the illusion of progress. From the 2001 Harkin-Engel Protocol — a voluntary agreement to end child labor by the world’s chocolate giants — to today’s glossy environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports, every initiative has promised progress and delivered delay. In 2007, the industry quietly redefined “public certification,” shifting it from a commitment to consumer labeling to a vague pledge to compile statistics on labor conditions. It missed the original 2010 deadline to eliminate child labor, as well as a new target to reduce it by 70 percent by 2020. And that year, a study by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that hazardous child labor in cocoa production increased from 2008 to 2019. “We covered a story about a ship carrying trafficked children,” recalled journalist Humphrey Hawksley, who first exposed the issue in the BBC documentary called Slavery: A Global Investigation. “The chocolate companies refused to comment and spoke as one industry. That was their rule. Even now, none of them is slave-free,” he added. As it stands, many of the more than 1.5 million West African children working in cocoa production are trafficked from neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali. Traffickers lure them with false promises or outright abduction, offering children as young as 10 either bicycles or small sums to travel to the Ivory Coast. There, they are sold to farmers for as little as $34 each. And once on these farms, they are trapped. They work up to 14 hours a day, sleep in windowless sheds with no clean water or toilets, and most never see the inside of a classroom. Last but not least, we come to deforestation: Since its independence, more than 90 percent of the Ivory Coast’s forests have disappeared due to cocoa farming. In 2024, deforestation accelerated despite corporate commitments to halt it by 2025, as declining soil fertility and stagnant prices pushed farmers farther into the forest to plant new cocoa trees. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” | Lena Klimkeit/Picture Alliance via Getty Images Certification labels like “Rainforest Alliance” and “Fairtrade” are supposed to prevent this. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” Complicit in all of this are the financiers and investors who profit. For example, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the world’s largest investor, and Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is a shareholder in 9,000 corporations, including Nestlé, Mondelez, Hershey, Barry Callebaut and Lindt — all part of the direct chocolate cluster. NBIM also has shares in McDonald’s, Starbucks, Unilever, the Dunkin’ parent company and Tim Hortons — the indirect high-volume buyer cluster. “The richest families in cocoa — the Marses, the Ferreros, the Cargills, the Jacobs — are billionaires thanks to the exploitation of the poorest children on earth,” said journalist and human rights campaigner Fernando Morales-de la Cruz, the founder of Cacao for Change. “And countries like Norway, which claim to be ethical, profit from slavery and child labor.” The problem is, few are asking who picks the cocoa. And though the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which was adopted last year, requires large companies to address human rights and environmental abuses in their supply chains, critics say the directive’s weaknesses, loopholes, and delayed enforcement will blunt its impact. However, all of this could still be fixed. Currently, a metric ton of cocoa sells for about $5,000 on world markets, but Morales-de la Cruz estimates that a fair farm-gate price would be around $7,500 per metric ton. To that end, he advocates for binding international trade standards that enforce living incomes and transparent pricing, modeled on the World Trade Organization’s compliance mechanisms. “Human rights should be as binding in trade as tariffs,” he insisted. The solution isn’t to buy more “ethical” bars but to demand accountability and support legislation that makes exploitation unprofitable. “We can’t shop our way to justice,” he said. So, as the trees in the Ivory Coast’s forests fall, the profits in Europe and North America continue to soar. And two decades after the industry vowed to end child labor, the cocoa supply chain remains one of the world’s most exploitative and least accountable. Moreover, the European Parliament’s vote on the Omnibus simplification package last month laid bare the corporate control and moral blindness still present in EU policymaking, all behind talk of “cutting red tape.” “Yet Europe’s media and EU-funded NGOs stay silent, talking of competitiveness and green transitions, while ignoring the children who harvest its cocoa, coffee and cotton,” said Morales-de la Cruz. “Europe cannot claim to defend human rights while profiting from exploitation.” However, until the industry pays a fair price and governments enforce real accountability, every bar of chocolate remains an unpaid moral debt.

BRUSSELS — The European Union has approved a proposal to curb trade benefits for developing countries that refuse to take back migrants whose stay in the bloc has been denied. Low-tariff access to the EU’s market will be reviewed in the context of “the readmission of that country’s own nationals” who have been identified as “irregular migrants to the Union,” a document seen by POLITICO confirms. Negotiators from the Council of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission agreed to the draft text late Monday night. The push to link trade measures to migration policy comes amid major advances by far-right parties across Europe and calls for governments to get tougher on enforcing returns. Currently, only a small share of those eligible for removal from the EU are actually deported — many because their home countries refuse to cooperate. “In case of serious and systematic shortcomings related to the international obligation to readmit a beneficiary country’s own nationals, the preferential arrangements … may be withdrawn temporarily, in respect of all or of certain products originating in that beneficiary country, where the Commission considers that an insufficient level of cooperation on readmission persists,” it reads. The readmission clause will be applied with more or less stringent conditions depending on a country’s development level, the document also says. The measures, which would only be invoked after dialog with countries, are being included in an overhaul of the so-called Generalized Scheme of Preferences, a 50-year old program that enables poorer countries to export goods to EU countries at lower tariff rates. The review of the program, which has been under negotiation for over three years, is designed to help these nations build their economies and is tied to the implementation of human rights, labor and environmental reforms. However, the issue of cheap rice imports from Pakistan or Bangladesh threatened to collapse the talks before the eventual agreement on Monday, amid concerns from EU producers like Spain and Italy that want to ensure their own farmers are not outcompeted. EU countries have long been considering the idea of using trade, development and visa policies to ensure third countries agree to take back failed migrants, amid growing public discontent that has driven victories for far-right parties at the ballot box. However, the proposals had faced opposition from the Parliament, as well as the Commission and a handful of capitals that feared this would upend relations with key partner countries. Denmark’s center-left government set its sights on migration as a key issue for its presidency, which ends on Dec. 31. Justice and home affairs ministers will meet next Monday to discuss ways to ensure more people leave the EU after their applications to stay are rejected, including through so-called return hubs in third countries.

LONDON — British MP Tulip Siddiq has been handed a two-year prison sentence in Bangladesh in her absence following a corruption trial she did not attend. Siddiq, a former U.K. minister, was found guilty of influencing her aunt, Bangladesh’s ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to secure a plot of land for her family in the outskirts of the capital Dhaka, according to a BBC report of the trial. Siddiq, a former U.K. Treasury minister, has strongly denied the claims and is unlikely to serve the sentence. She is based in London and is the MP for the London constituency of Hampstead and Highgate. The case is one of a number launched by prosecutors against Hasina and her family in Bangladesh. Hasina fled the country last year after more than a decade in charge. The ex-PM was sentenced to death in a separate trial a fortnight ago. Siddiq quit as a  Treasury minister in January following multiple media reports — heavily disputed by Siddiq — that she benefited from her family’s rule of Bangladesh. She said she did not want to be a “distraction” for the government. In a statement at the start of the trial, Siddiq said prosecutors had “peddled false and vexatious allegations that have been briefed to the media but never formally put to me by investigators,” and insisted she had “done nothing wrong.” “Continuing to smear my name to score political points is both baseless and damaging,” she added. A group of senior lawyers, including Britain’s ex-Justice secretary Robert Buckland, former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and Cherie Blair, a human rights lawyer and wife of former prime minister Tony Blair, last week said the trial had been “contrived and unfair.” The U.K. does not have an extradition treaty in place with Bangladesh. In a fresh statement Monday morning, Siddiq slammed what she called a “flawed and farcical” legal process. “The outcome of this kangaroo court is as predictable as it is unjustified,” she said. “I hope this so called ‘verdict’ will be treated with the contempt it deserves. My focus has always been my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate and I refuse to be distracted by the dirty politics of Bangladesh.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told European allies that the U.S. wants a peace deal before it agrees to any security guarantees for Ukraine. That condition has underscored American proposals to Kyiv over the past week, according to a European diplomat and a person familiar with knowledge of the conversations. Rubio, on a Tuesday call with European officials, argued President Donald Trump will negotiate long-term guarantees for Ukraine’s safety later, they said, that would ensure Kyiv feels secure. Ukraine’s leaders have held Western security guarantees as a cornerstone for any feasible deal with Russia, although NATO members have struggled to figure out how to support the war-scarred country either militarily or with intelligence support. Trump has said he won’t invite Ukraine’s leader to the White House until a deal is signed. Rubio mentioned security assurances to Ukraine during negotiations last weekend in Geneva, but did not go into detail and did not reiterate the offer during a call with the British and French, according to another European diplomat, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. The secretary also broadly mentioned several other issues to address after a deal, which the Europeans took to mean Ukrainian territorial integrity and frozen Russian assets, according to the second diplomat. Neither the State Department nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment. Initial U.S. peace proposals for the conflict circulating last week called for Ukraine to limit its military to 600,000 troops, while putting no restrictions on the size of Russian forces. Rubio and other U.S. officials have subsequently defended the 28-point plan as a starting point, instead of a full-fledged proposal. But the Trump administration has increasingly tilted away from full-fledged support of Ukraine to a more neutral posture in the talks. Rubio told his European counterparts on Thursday that the U.S. was not seen as a fair mediator in the talks because it supplies both U.S. military aid to Ukraine and institutes sanctions against Russia, according to two of the European diplomats. But the Trump administration faces some pressure — even from Republicans in Congress — to provide strong guarantees to Ukraine so it can prevent another Russian invasion. “If Ukraine has to give up any land, it has to come with, like Article Five security agreements with NATO and the United States, because that is the only way to stop Russia from doing this again,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), referring to a provision that requires NATO countries to defend each other if attacked. “That’s the end state of any kind of agreement.” The U.S. has provided nearly $67 billion in military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022, although much of that funding came during the Biden administration. Since then, the U.S. has put together a NATO plan where individual European nations can buy American weapons for Ukraine. The European Union is also trying to use frozen Russian assets to provide further assistance. One Ukrainian official said that they had seen no indications that the Trump administration was willing to increase aid. France and Britain have largely taken the lead in the 33-nation “coalition of the willing” that is weighing putting European troops in Ukraine. But some European countries worry that the Trump administration will tip the scales toward Russia. “Nothing about human rights, humanitarian law, international law nor principles,” said a third European diplomat in reference to the peace plans. “This is creating a new European ‘security architecture’ full of holes.” Gigi Ewing and Diana Nerozzi contributed to this report.