Developed and funded by AbbVie in collaboration with the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition) and based on an interview with Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, chief executive officer of the Coalition, and Frances Reid, programme director of the Coalition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Late diagnoses, burdensome treatments and disease recurrence are realities for many women with ovarian cancer.1,2,3,4,5 Their stories are evidence of systemic challenges impacting care that policymakers have the power to combat. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition), the only global ovarian cancer patient advocacy organization, is driving evidence generation to inform tangible policy reforms that could reduce the socioeconomic burden of this disease on individuals and wider societies.6 Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers affecting women in Europe, yet it remains overlooked.7,8 While other areas of women’s health benefit from policy frameworks and public awareness, ovarian cancer continues to sit in the margins, creating real human consequences. In 2022, Europe recorded the highest rates of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality worldwide.8 Only 40 percent of women in Europe remain alive five years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with advanced-stage diagnoses often having poorer outcomes.8 Despite this, ovarian cancer remains absent from many national cancer plans and there is still no unified European policy framework to address it.  In partnership with European patient groups, the Coalition is convening a series of workshops for ovarian cancer survivors to share their experiences. Alongside leading clinicians and advocates, the Coalition is leveraging these testimonies to develop policy recommendations to inform national and European cancer strategies. Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, the Coalition’s chief executive officer, and Frances Reid, programme director and Every Woman Study lead, share their insights into the challenges women with ovarian cancer face and how policy changes can offer improved support. The hidden emotional and physical cost  There are education and awareness gaps that can impede diagnosis and prioritization. Many women believe that cervical cancer screening (otherwise known as the Pap smear) can detect ovarian cancer.9 Another widespread misconception is that ovarian cancer has no symptoms until very advanced stages.10 However, the Coalition’s Every Woman Study (2021) found that nine in 10 women do experience symptoms, even during the early stages.11  “These misconceptions cause real harm. They delay diagnosis, they delay action and they stop women from being heard,” Reid comments.  The ovarian cancer journey can be distressingly complex. Women frequently undergo major surgery, multiple rounds of treatment and long recovery periods.4,12,13 Even after treatment ends, the fear of recurrence can cast a shadow over daily life.  Ovarian cancer often strikes when many women are still working, caring for children, supporting aging parents and contributing to their communities in a variety of ways. 14,15 When they fall ill, the consequences ripple outwards. Some partners have to reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely to care for their loved ones.16 Families may take on emotional strain and financial pressure that can carry lasting impacts.17,18  Reid says: “These women are mothers, daughters, employees, carers, community anchors. When they are affected, the impact is not only personal — it is economic, social and predictable.” The Coalition’s socioeconomic burden study explored the cost to health services, the impact of informal caregiving, productive time lost by patients traveling to and receiving care, and longer-term productivity impacts.17 It found that the majority of the socioeconomic impact of ovarian cancer does not come from health service costs, but from the value of lives lost.17 Across the 11 countries examined, ill-health from ovarian cancer led to lost labor productivity equivalent to 2.5 million days of work.17 In the U.K. alone, productivity losses amounted to over US$52 million per year.17 In 2026, the Coalition will look further into the socioeconomic impact across high-income countries across Europe. Despite this measurable burden, ovarian cancer remains under-prioritized in health planning and funding decisions. Why women still struggle to get the care they need  Across Europe, many women face delays at various stages along their journey, some due to policy and system design choices. For example, without screening methods for early detection, diagnosis relies heavily on recognizing symptoms and receiving timely referrals.1,19,20 Yet many women often struggle to access specialists or face long waits for investigations.2,11,21   While Europe benefits from world-class innovation in ovarian cancer research, access to that innovation can be inconsistent. Recently published data from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that average time to availability for oncology products in Europe continues to increase, with 2024 data showing time from approval to access was 33 days slower than in 2023 and 66 days slower than in 2022.22 In 2024, it took an average of 586 days — or ~19 months — for patients to access new therapies after approval, with significant variation between countries.22 Delays in treatment impact prognosis and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.23 The challenges in care also extend to psychological and emotional support. The Every Woman Study found that only 28 percent of women were offered mental health support, despite the known vulnerabilities throughout treatment, recovery and recurrence.12   Paganoni-Bruijns and Reid reinforce that through the Coalition’s work, they have often found that “women feel unseen and unheard. They see progress in other cancers and ask: why not us?” What a better future looks like A better future starts with addressing ovarian cancer as part of a holistic vision and plan for women’s health. Europe has the foundational frameworks, infrastructure and clinical expertise to lead the way. What is needed now is political attention and policy alignment that includes ovarian cancer as part of these broader programs.  Paganoni-Bruijns comments: “We cannot keep treating gynecological cancers as if they exist in separate boxes. Women experience their health as one reality, so policies must reflect that.”  Existing structures in breast and cervical cancer offer valuable lessons. Across Europe, millions of women already move through screening programs, health promotion initiatives and established diagnostic pathways.24 These systems could be used to increase awareness of ovarian cancer symptoms, improve referral routes and access to specialist care, and support earlier detection. Increased investment in genetic and biomarker testing, as well as emerging early detection research, can be accelerated by aligning with these established programs. The Coalition is partnering with global experts to translate these lessons into the first-ever evidence-based framework for ovarian cancer mortality rate reduction, however, policy action at the regional and national level must keep pace.  The EU-funded DISARM project is a promising example of the progress underway to help Europe ‘disarm’ the threat of ovarian cancer. DISARM is a coordinated, multi-country effort to strengthen ovarian cancer risk assessment, validate affordable early-detection tools and understand how these innovations can be implemented within real-world health systems. Crucially, it is designed both to generate evidence and to address feasibility, uptake and system readiness, the factors that, together, determine whether innovation actually reaches patients.   As Paganoni-Bruijns explains, “DISARM shows what progress looks like when science, policy and patient experience are designed to work together. It is not about a single breakthrough or ‘quick fix’, but about building the conditions for earlier detection — through better risk assessment, validated tools and systems that are ready to use them.”  Yet projects like DISARM, while essential, cannot carry the burden alone. Without a cohesive European or global World Health Organization framework for ovarian cancer, progress remains fragmented, uneven and vulnerable to delay. Europe has often set the pace for global cancer policy and ovarian cancer should be no exception. By recognizing ovarian cancer as a priority within European women’s health, policymakers can be part of setting the global standard for a new era of coordinated and patient-centered care. Paganoni-Bruijns shares the Coalition’s call-to-action: “The systems exist. The evidence exists. We know that we need to include ovarian cancer in national cancer plans, improve diagnostic pathways, strengthen genetic testing and commit to EU-level monitoring. What is missing is prioritization. With leadership and accountability, ovarian cancer does not have to remain one of Europe’s deadliest cancers.” The stakes are rising and the window for meaningful action is narrowing. But with focused leadership, Europe can change the trajectory of ovarian cancer. Women across the continent deserve earlier diagnoses, access to innovation and the chance to live not just longer, but better. To understand why action on ovarian cancer cannot wait, listen to the Coalition’s Changing the Ovarian Cancer Story podcast series, or visit the Coalition’s website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1 Rampes S, et al. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e52. 2 Funston G, et al. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better? Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72:312-313.  3 Tookman L, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and burden in advanced ovarian cancer: a UK real-world survey of healthcare professionals and patients. Future Oncol. 2024;20:1657-1673.  4 National Cancer Institute. Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-epithelial-treatment-pdq [Last accessed: January 2026]. 5 Beesley et al. Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns). Gynecologic Oncology 164 (2022):437-445.  6 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. About the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-us/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 7 Manzano A, Košir U, Hofmarcher T. Bridging the gap in women’s cancers care: a global policy report on disparities, innovations and solutions. IHE Report 2025:12. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE); 2025. 8 ENGAGe. Ovarian Cancer. Available at: https://engage.esgo.org/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  9 Target Ovarian Cancer. Driving change through knowledge – updated NHS cervical screening guide. Available at: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/news/driving-change-through-knowledge-updated-nhs-cervical-screening-guide [Last accessed: January 2026]. 10 Goff BA, et al. Frequency of Symptoms of Ovarian Cancer in Women Presenting to Primary Care Clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705–2712.  11 Reid F, et al. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition Every Woman Study: identifying challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:238-244.  12 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Treatment. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/treatment/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  13 Cancer Research UK. Recovering from ovarian cancer surgery. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/treatment/surgery/recovering-from-surgery [Last accessed: January 2026]. 14 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Causes. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/causes/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  15 American Cancer Society. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html [Last accessed: January 2026].  16 Shukla S, et al. VOCAL (Views of Ovarian Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers – How Maintenance Therapy Affects Their Lives) Study: Cancer-Related Burden and Quality of Life of Caregivers [Poster]. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe; 2022 Nov 6–9; Vienna, Austria. 17 Hutchinson B, et al. Socioeconomic Burden of Ovarian Cancer in 11 Countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2025;11:e2400313. 18 Petricone-Westwood D, et al.An Investigation of the Effect of Attachment on Distress among Partners of Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Their Relationship with the Cancer Care Providers. Current Oncology. 2021;28(4):2950–2960.  19 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian Cancer Testing & Detection. Available at: http://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/detection-testing/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/resources/suspected-cancer-recognition-and-referral-pdf-1837268071621 [Last accessed: January 2026]. 21 Menon U, et al. Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). Br J Cancer. 2022;127:844-854.  22 European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). New data shows no shift in access to medicines for millions of Europeans. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/new-data-shows-no-shift-in-access-to-medicines-for-millions-of-europeans/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  23 Zhao J, et al. Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. J Cancer. 2024;15:473-483.  24 European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Last accessed: January 2026].  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL-ONCOC-250039 v1.0  February 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is AbbVie * The ultimate controlling entity is AbbVie More information here.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europe is testing how far it’s willing to go — at home and abroad. In this episode of EU Confidential, host Sarah Wheaton talks to Jonathan Haidt, author of the best-selling “The Anxious Generation.” His research is inspiring social media bans for kids in countries including France and Australia, even as tech companies and some researchers strongly contest his conclusions. Alongside him is MEP Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová and POLITICO tech reporter Eliza Gkritsi, who is reporting on EU deliberations on protecting teens’ mental health. Later, Sarah is joined by POLITICO’s Nick Vinocur and trade reporter Camille Gijs, who was on the ground in New Delhi for the signing of the EU–India trade and defense agreement — dubbed by Ursula von der Leyen the “mother of all deals.”

BRUSSELS — France is hurtling toward a ban for children younger than 15 to access social media — a move that would see it become only the second country in the world to take that step. The plan comes amid rising concerns about the impacts of apps including Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X on children’s mental health. After Australia in December kicked kids under 16 off a host of platforms, France is leading the charge in Europe with a bill that would prohibit social media for under-15s as soon as this year. Supported by President Emmanuel Macron and his centrist Renaissance party, the proposed law passed the French parliament’s lower chamber in the early hours of Tuesday. Here are 5 things to know. WHEN WILL A BAN KICK IN? While the timing isn’t finalized, the government is targeting September of this year. “As of September 1st, our children and adolescents will finally be protected. I will see to it,” Macron said in an X post. The bill now has to be voted on by the French Senate, and Macron’s governing coalition is aiming for a discussion on Feb. 16. If the Senate votes the bill through, a joint committee with representatives of both upper and lower houses of parliament will be formed to finalize the text. WHICH PLATFORMS WILL BE BANNED? That decision will lie with France’s media authority Arcom, since the legislation itself doesn’t outline which platforms will or won’t be covered. The architect of the bill, Renaissance lawmaker Laure Miller, has said it will be similar to Australia’s and would likely see under-15s banned from using Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X. Australia no longer allows children under 16 to create accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. Australia’s list doesn’t include Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp or YouTube Kids. Miller has also described plans to come up with a definition that could see the ban cover individual features on social media platforms. WhatsApp Stories and Channels — a feature of the popular messaging app — could be included, as well as the online chat within the gaming platform Roblox, the French MP said. WHO WILL ENFORCE IT? With France set to be the first country within the European Union to take this step, a major sticking point as the bill moves through parliament has been who will enforce it. Authorities have finally settled on an answer: Brussels. The EU has comprehensive social media rules, the Digital Services Act, which on paper prohibits countries from giving big platforms additional obligations. After some back and forth between France and the European Commission, they have come to an agreement. France can’t give more obligations to platforms but it can set a minimum age on accessing social media. It will then be up to the Commission to ensure national rules are followed. This is similar to how other parts of the DSA work, such as illegal content. Exactly what is illegal content is determined by national law, and the Commission must then make sure that platforms are properly assessing and mitigating the risks of spreading it. How exactly the EU will make sure no children in France are accessing sites is untested. DSA violations can lead to fines of up to 6 percent of platforms’ annual global revenue. WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES? Companies within the industry have been at loggerheads over who should implement age gates that would render the social media ban possible. Platform providers including Meta say that operating system services should implement age checks, whereas OS and app store providers such as Apple say the opposite. The Commission has not clearly prescribed responsibility to either side of the industry, but France has interpreted guidance from Brussels as putting the onus on the service providers. France’s bill therefore puts the responsibility on the likes of TikTok and Instagram. Exactly what the technical solution will be to implement a ban is up to the platforms, as long as it meets requirements for accuracy and privacy. Some public entities have developed solutions, like the French postal service’s “Jeprouvemonage,” which the platforms can use. Privately developed tech is also available. “No solution will be imposed on the platforms by the state,” the office of the minister for digital affairs told journalists.  IS THIS HAPPENING IN OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES? France is not the only European country working on such restrictions. Denmark’s parliament agreed on restrictions for under-15s, although parents can allow them to go on social media if they are older than 13. Denmark hasn’t passed a formal bill. Austria’s digital minister said an Australia-style ban is being developed for under-14s. Bills are going through the Spanish and Italian parliaments, and Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has also voiced support for similar plans. Germany is considering its options. The Dutch government has issued guidance to say kids younger than 15 should not access social media like TikTok. Many of these countries as well as the European Parliament have said they want something done at the EU level. While the Commission has said it will allow EU countries to set their own minimum ages for accessing social media, it is also trying to come up with measures that would apply across the entire bloc. President Ursula von der Leyen has been personally paying attention to this issue and is setting up a panel of experts to figure out if an EU-wide ban is desirable and tenable.

LONDON — Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party retracted a contentious statement that referred to the mental health of former Tory cabinet minister Suella Braverman who earlier Monday announced her defection to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Braverman, a former home secretary, became the insurgent right-wing outfit’s eighth MP on Monday when she resigned her Tory membership of 30 years. Braverman will stay on as MP for her Fareham and Waterlooville constituency. Following her switch to Farage’s poll-topping party, the Conservatives sent a statement to journalists lambasting her record, and making reference to her mental health. “It was always a matter of when, not if, Suella would defect. The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy,” the spokesperson said. The backlash came quickly. A Reform spokesperson said: “It’s gutter politics, a sign of what the Conservative Party has become.” Government minister Mike Tapp described the remarks as “below the standards we expect,” while Labour colleague Josh Fenton-Glynn said it was “horrible.” “Attacking someone on mental health is wrong,” he wrote on X. “The kind of first draft of an email you do before having a cup of tea and letting your better angels take over.” A new version of the Conservative statement, which was sent around an hour-and-a-half after the original, pointedly omitted the “mental health” comments, with Conservative officials saying the original “draft” had been sent in “error.”  It is the latest in a series of Conservative attacks on defectors to Reform. When Robert Jenrick quit as shadow justice secretary to join Reform, Badenoch shrugged off the departure of one of her most recognizable MPs. She painted Jenrick as someone who had been working to undermine her party: “So I’m just glad that Nigel Farage is doing my spring cleaning for me. He’s taking away my problems.” When former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi jumped to Farage’s ship, Conservative officials let it be known that he’d been asking Badenoch for a peerage just weeks before. Sam Francis contributed reporting.

STEVENAGE, England — Nigel Farage has a Donald Trump problem. Even voters keen on his poll-topping party are unsure about the company he keeps. Among a key constituency of women considering switching from the ruling Labour Party to Reform UK, concern about Farage’s relationship with Donald Trump is rife, according to a new focus group and polling shared with POLITICO. In the midst of Trump’s tariff saber-rattling this week, POLITICO listened to the group of women living in the commuter-belt town of Stevenage — 30 miles north of London. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. “Stevenage woman” became pollsters’ shorthand for mothers based in towns and suburbs at the last election, who were seen as crucial to Labour’s 2024 general election victory. Farage might “just be a stooge” for Trump, Lauren, a mental health support worker, said. “He might just be [Trump’s] whipping boy. That kind of concerns me,” the 54-year-old added. Jane, a 51-year-old stay-at-home mum of three, said: “There’s no one who will actually stand up to him. Trump would say, ‘do this, do that,’ and Nigel would be like ‘yep, yep.'” When asked to pinpoint the greatest threat to the U.K., Rachel, a 47-year-old property manager, said: “I think Trump, full stop.” These women are not alone in their view. Wider polling by More in Common, the think tank which organized the focus group held on Monday night, found 25 percent of women see Farage’s support for Trump as the top reason not to vote Reform. That compared to 21 percent of the men surveyed between Jan. 10 and 13. More in Common’s sample size was 2,036 people. FRIENDS CAN DISAGREE Farage has often spoken of his admiration for Trump. The Reform leader famously shared a snap of himself with the U.S. president-elect in Trump Tower after his shock first-term election victory in 2016. Nigel Farage arriving at Trump Tower, New York City, Dec. 15, 2016. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images That association has continued. The pair met in the Oval Office last September when Farage was in Washington. But the Reform leader’s support for Trump has its limits. Farage this week described U.S. tariff threats over the U.K.’s opposition to the annexation of Greenland as “wrong,” as European leaders lined-up to condemn Trump’s economic aggression towards his NATO allies. “Friends will disagree,” Farage said in an interview with Bloomberg in Davos on Thursday morning, insisting a close relationship with the U.S. did not mean being “beholden.” Despite their Trump misgivings, the Stevenage women are still minded to vote for Farage’s Reform UK. “I quite liked him on ‘I’m a Celebrity’ and it’s grown from there,” Alice, a 55-year-old building society manager, said, referencing Farage’s 2023 appearance on the reality jungle game show. “God knows what would happen if he got into power. But could he be any worse [than the current government]?,” she said, to an emphatic “no” from others in the room. Reform is “gaining a lot of support through default, aren’t they?,” Lauren, the mental health worker quoted above, said, citing a wider loss of trust in the mainstream parties.  “I just feel like anything is better than now and it depresses me,” Megan, a 48-year-old regional manager for a brewer, said. “If I could see a little shimmer of light for our future for our children, I think I would want to go down that way,” she said of Reform. WHY NOT STARMER? Despite attempts to exploit Farage’s perceived vulnerability on foreign policy this month, there are few signs Starmer is reaping any electoral reward. Asked how the British PM is doing, 63-year-old retiree Sandra said “rubbish.”  “Nothing’s really changed,” she said. “We thought the new government were coming in with all these promises and that, and actually nothing. … We’re still in a state, aren’t we?” The Stevenage women POLITICO spoke to made it clear they were no longer fans of Starmer’s Labour, but More in Common Executive Director Luke Tryl says the Trump factor still remains a risk for Farage. “This group of women had no time for Trump and his tactics and wondered what the president’s erraticism would mean for their safety and security and the future of their children,” the think tank boss said. “With Brits already saying that Nigel Farage’s relationship with Trump is the biggest barrier to voting Reform, particularly women, and over half of the country describing Farage as Britain’s Trump, there is a very real risk that the Reform leader’s association with the U.S. president means that a Farage premiership is seen as a risk too far,” he added.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertion that taking paracetamol during pregnancy is linked to autism in kids has been debunked by a large evidence review. Researchers say the new study published Saturday should put women at ease should they need to use these painkillers. Last year, Trump warned pregnant women against using Tylenol — a U.S. brand name for paracetamol — during pregnancy, arguing that its use “can be associated with a very increased risk of autism.” The position was driven by Republicans pushing the MAHA — Make America Healthy Again — movement led by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But it has split politicians and health experts on both sides of the Atlantic and confused citizens. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered a new safety warning be added to Tylenol leaflets, the European Medicines Agency said at the time there was no evidence of a link between paracetamol use in pregnancy and autism. Medical professionals raised concerns that pregnant women would have no treatment for fever or pain, and may be vilified for the rise in autism in recent decades. Now, a large review of 43 studies, published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health, found there is no evidence of a link — contradicting the U.S. studies used to recommend against its use in the U.S. “We found no clinically important increase in the risk of autism, [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)] or intellectual disability of the children where the mothers took paracetamol during pregnancy,” said Asma Khalil, a consultant obstetrician and fetal medicine specialist at St George’s Hospital in London, who led the study. “The important message to the millions of pregnant individuals is the fact that actually paracetamol is safe to use in pregnancy,” she added. “It remains to be the first line of treatment that we would recommend if the pregnant woman has pain or fever in pregnancy.” While previous studies did suggest small associations between paracetamol in pregnancy and increased risks of autism and ADHD, the Lancet researchers said these were often based on studies prone to biases. In particular, the U.S. administration cited a study published last summer which found a link between paracetamol during pregnancy and increased incidence of neuro-developmental disorders (NDDs). But in this review “there are several studies [which] suffer or are vulnerable to bias,” Khalil said. “The potential implications of not accounting for these confounders is that you draw their own conclusions.” The Lancet’s evidence review instead focused on studies with the most rigorous research methods, such as those at low risk of bias, those with sibling comparisons and with at least five years of follow up — and found no link. In particular, sibling-comparison studies allow researchers to compare children born to the same mother, who only took paracetamol during one of the pregnancies. They take into account shared genetic factors, shared family and long-term parental characteristics. “Our findings suggest that previously reported links are likely to be explained by genetic predisposition or other maternal factors such as fever or underlying pain, rather than a direct effect of the paracetamol itself,” Khalil said. Public health experts, the EMA and the European Commission, pushed back against Trump’s position last year, arguing there was no evidence to support it. “While the impact of last year’s announcement has been extensive, I hope the findings of this study bring the matter to a close,” Grainne McAlonan, professor of translational neuroscience at King’s College London, said.  “Expectant mothers do not need the stress of questioning whether medicine most commonly used for a headache could have far reaching effects on their child’s health,” McAlonan said.

LONDON — They’re young, full of ideas — and about to be given the vote. Britain’s government has committed to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years — a major extension of the electorate that could have big implications for the outcome of the next race, expected by 2029. It means Brits who are just 12 today are in line to vote in the next general election, which is expected to be a fierce battle between incumbent Keir Starmer and his right-wing challenger Nigel Farage. But what do these young people actually think? In a bid to start pinning down the views of this cohort, POLITICO commissioned pollster More in Common to hold an in-depth focus group, grilling eight youngsters from across the country on everything from social media disinformation to what they would do inside No. 10 Downing Street. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. The group all showed an interest in politics, and had strong views on major topics such as immigration and climate change — but the majority were unaware they would get the chance to vote in 2029.  In a bid to prepare the country for the change, the Electoral Commission has recommended that the school curriculum be reformed to ensure compulsory teaching on democracy and government from an early age. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER There are few better introductions to the weird world of British politics than prime minister’s questions, the weekly House of Commons clash between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Conservative opponent Kemi Badenoch. Our group of 12-13-year-olds was shown a clip of the clash and asked to rate what they saw. They came away distinctly unimpressed. Hanh, 13, from Surrey, said the pair seemed like children winding each other up. “It seems really disrespectful in how they’re talking to each other,” she commented. “It sounds like they’re actually kids bickering … They were just going at each other, which didn’t seem very professional in my opinion.” Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” | Clive Brunskill/Getty Images Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” In the clip, the Commons backbenches roar as Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch quips about Starmer’s MPs wanting a new leader for Christmas. In turn, the PM dismisses the Conservative chief’s performance as a “Muppet’s Christmas Carol.” Twelve-year-old Holly, from Lincolnshire, said the pair were being “really aggressive and really harsh on each other, which was definitely rude.” And she said of the PM: “It weren’t really working out for Keir Starmer.” None of the children knew who Badenoch was, but all knew Starmer — even if they didn’t have particularly high opinions of the prime minister, who is tanking in the polls and struggling to get his administration off the ground. Twelve-year-old Alex said the “promises” Starmer had made were just “lies” to get him into No. 10. Sophie, a 12-year-old from Worcester in the West Midlands, was equally withering, saying she thought the PM is doing a “bad job.” “He keeps making all these promises, but he’s probably not even doing any of them,” she added. “He just wants to show off and try to be cool, but he’s not being cool because he’s breaking all the promises. He just wants all the money and the job to make him look really good.” Sarah said: “I think that it’s quite hard to keep all of those promises, and he’s definitely bitten off more than he can chew with the fact that he’s only made those statements because he wants to be voted for and he wants to be in charge.”  While some of the young people referenced broken promises by Starmer, none offered specifics. THE FARAGE FACTOR Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images “He’s the leader of the Reform party,” said Alex, whose favorite subject is computing. “He promises lots of things and the opposite of what Starmer wants. Instead of helping immigrants, he wants to kick them out. He wants to lower taxes, wants to stop benefits.” Alex added: “I like him.” Sarah was much less taken. “I’ve heard that he’s the leader of the far right, or he’s part of the far right. I think he’s quite a racist man.” Farage has faced accusations in recent weeks of making racist remarks in his school days. The Reform UK leader replied that he had “never directly racially abused anybody.” Other participants said they’d only heard Farage’s name before. When asked who they would back if they were voting tomorrow, most children shrugged and looked bewildered. Only two of the group could name who they wanted to vote for — both Alex and Sam backed Farage. POLICY WORRIES Politicians have long tried to reach Britain’s youngsters through questionable TikTok videos and cringe memes — but there was much more going on in the minds of this group than simply staring at phones. Climate change, mental health and homelessness were dominant themes of the conversation. Climate change is “dangerous because the polar bears will die,” warned Chris, 13, from Manchester. Sophie, who enjoys horse riding, is worried about habitats being destroyed and animals having to find new homes as a result of climate change, while Sarah is concerned about rising sea levels. Thirteen-year-old Ravi from Liverpool said his main focus was homelessness. “I know [the government is] building houses, but maybe speed the process up and get homeless people off the streets as quick as they can because it’s not nice seeing them on the streets begging,” he said. Sam agreed, saying if he personally made it into No.10, he would make sure “everyone has food, water, all basic survival stuff.” Sarah’s main ask was for better mental health care amid a strained National Health Service. “The NHS is quite busy dealing with mental health, anxiety and things like that,” she said. “Maybe we should try and make an improvement with that so everyone gets a voice and everyone’s heard.” IMMIGRATION DIVISIONS When the conversation moved to the hot-button topic of immigration, views were more sharply divided. Imagining what he’d do in government, Alex said he’d focus on “lowering taxes and stopping illegal immigrants from coming over.” “Because we’re paying France billions just to stop them, but they’re not doing anything,” he said. “And also it’s spending all the tax money on them to give them home meals, stuff like that.” In July, Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration, although it’s enjoyed limited success so far and has generated some embarrassing headlines for the British government. Hanh said she’d been taught at school that it’s important to show empathy, but noted some people are angry about taxes going to support asylum seekers. Chris and Sarah both said asylum seekers are fleeing war, and seemed uneasy at the thought of drawing a hard line. Holly said she wants “racism” — which she believes is tied to conversations about immigration — to end. “I often hear a lot of racism [at school] and prejudice-type stuff … I often hear the N word. People don’t understand how bad that word is and how it can affect people,” she said. “They [migrants] have moved away from something to get safer, and then they get more hate.” Hanh said she is seeing more anti-immigration messages on social media, such as “why are you in my country, get out,” she said. “Then that’s being dragged into school by students who are seeing this … it’s coming into school environment, which is not good for learning.” NEWS SNOOZE Look away now, journalists: The group largely agreed that the news is boring. Some listen in when their parents have the television or radio on, but all said they get most of their news from social media or the odd push alert. Asked why they think the news is so dull, Hanh — who plays field hockey and enjoys art at school — said: “It just looks really boring to look at, there are no cool pictures or any funny things or fun colors. It just doesn’t look like something I’d be interested in.” She said she prefers social media: “With TikTok, you can interact with stuff and look at comments and see other people’s views, [but with the news] you just see evidence and you see all these facts. Sometimes it can be about really disturbing stuff like murder and stuff like that. If it’s going to pop up with that, I don’t really want to watch that.” These children aren’t alone in pointing to social media as their preferred source of news. A 2025 report by communications watchdog Ofcom found that 57 percent of 12-15-year-olds consume news on social media, with TikTok being the most commonly used platform, followed by YouTube and then Instagram. Sophie isn’t convinced that the news is for her. “Sometimes if my parents put it on the TV and it’s about something that’s really bad that’s happened, then I’ll definitely look at it,” she said. “But otherwise, I think it would probably be more for older people because they would like to watch basically whatever’s on the TV because they can’t really be bothered to change the channel.”

The European Parliament on Wednesday called for a Europe-wide minimum threshold of 16 for minors to access social media without their parents’ consent. Parliament members also want the EU to hold tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk personally liable should their platforms consistently violate the EU’s provisions on protecting minors online — a suggested provision that was added by Hungarian social-democrat member Dóra Dávid, who previously worked for Meta. The call for tougher rules on social media comes as several EU countries prepare more restrictions on social media for kids, following concerns about the effects on mental health and development of platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and others. Australia is in the process of implementing an age limit of 16 for users of social media accounts. The European Parliament backed an age limit in its report on how to better protect minors online, with 483 members voting in favor, 92 against and 86 abstaining. The report called on the European Commission to ensure that laws and measures on age checks are consistent across the bloc. Several countries are rushing to develop their own national checks. The bulk of the votes against and abstentions came from political groups on the right, who have argued that the report goes too far into EU countries’ competencies. The report was led by Danish social-democrat Christel Schaldemose, who also led Parliament’s work on the Digital Services Act, the EU’s content moderation regulation. The report could influence upcoming negotiations on EU law. The Commission is set to propose two legislative acts that will include heavy chunks on minor protections next year: the review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and a new Digital Fairness Act.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

French prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into TikTok for failing to safeguard the mental health of children on its platforms. It’s the first time the protection of minors on social media has led to criminal proceedings, marking a significant escalation in regulators’ push to protect children on the internet. The probe comes after a parliamentary inquiry led by Socialist lawmaker Arthur Delaporte, which presented its findings on Sept. 11. A criminal investigation was opened by the Paris police’s cybercrime unit at the end of October, Delaporte wrote in a press release welcoming the news. “Our commission’s empirical observation is that of an algorithmic trap that, in just a few interactions, increases exposure to harmful, anxiety-inducing, and depressing content,” he previously said. TikTok is regulated as a Very Large Online Platform by the European Commission under the EU’s Digital Services Act. The EU has been investigating TikTok for lapses in the protection of child users. TikTok and the Commission did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.