Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Von der Freigabe strategischer Ölreserven über die umstrittene Preisobergrenze an Tankstellen bis hin zur verschärften Missbrauchsaufsicht durch das Kartellamt: Jürgen Klöckner und Joanna Lehner erklären die Mechanismen hinter den Maßnahmen und warum Reiches Vorgänger Robert Habeck plötzlich wieder als Referenz dient. Im Policy Talk berichtet der Logistikunternehmer und Münchner IHK-Vizepräsident Georg Dettendorfer aus der Praxis. Er schildert, wie Treibstoffgleitklauseln in Verträgen die Liquidität mittelständischer Unternehmen auffressen, warum Frachtraum aus Osteuropa verschwindet und weshalb er jetzt staatliche Darlehen nach dem Vorbild der Corona-Soforthilfen fordert. Gesundheitsministerin Nina Warken muss Milliarden sparen, um die Krankenkassen zu stabilisieren. Warum sie dabei keine Rücksicht auf die mächtige Pharmalobby nehmen kann und weshalb sie für diesen Sparkurs dringend die Rückendeckung von Kanzler Friedrich Merz benötigt, ordnet Jürgen Klöckner ein. ⁠Hier den neuen Pro-Newsletter „Gesundheit am Morgen“ kostenlos testen.⁠ „Power & Policy“ zeigt jede Woche, wo und wie die Entscheidungen in der Wirtschaftspolitik fallen. ⁠Jürgen Klöckner⁠ und ⁠Joana Lehner⁠ von POLITICO sprechen mit Top-Entscheidern und liefern Off-the-Record-Einblicke aus der Redaktion und Machtzentren. Präzise Analysen, lange bevor Gesetze beschlossen sind. Der Podcast für alle in Wirtschaft und Politik, die einen Wissensvorsprung brauchen — immer donnerstags. Für Policy-Profis: Abonnieren und die Pro-Newsletter ⁠Industrie & Handel⁠, ⁠Energie & Klima ⁠und ⁠Gesundheit⁠. Jetzt kostenlos testen. Fragen und Feedback gern an ⁠powerandpolicy@politico.eu⁠ POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Eigentlich sollte der Koalitionsausschuss kein Krisengremium sein, aber die geopolitische Realität überholt das Versprechen. Bei Ölpreisen von über 100 Dollar und nervösen Börsen wächst der Druck auf die Bundesregierung. Während Finanzminister Lars Klingbeil das Antasten der strategischen Ölreserven noch als „verfrüht“ ablehnt, nimmt er die Profiteure ins Visier. Joana Lehner vom Newsletter „Energie und Klima am Morgen“ und Co-Host von „Power & Policy“ analysiert, warum die Koalition statt auf Vorräte lieber auf das Kartellrecht setzt und welche Strategien Wirtschaftsministerin Katherina Reiche nun gegen horrende Energiepreise auffahren muss. Nach dem Desaster bei der Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg steht für die FDP die nächste Niederlage in Rheinland-Pfalz an. Es stellt sich die Existenzfrage: Sind die Liberalen am Ende? Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht der Ex-FDP-Minister Volker Wissing über den Niedergang seiner ehemaligen Partei. Gesundheitsministerin Nina Warken zieht die Daumenschrauben an. Trotz massiver Warnungen der Pharma-Industrie vor Standortflucht und Innovationsstopp hält sie an ihren Sparplänen fest. Jürgen Klöckner berichtet aus dem ersten Interview für unseren neuen Newsletter POLITICO Pro „Gesundheit am Morgen“: Wie Warken die Finanzlücke von 14 Milliarden Euro schließen will, warum sie bei US-Amtskollege Robert Kennedy Jr. nicht auf „Bekehrung“ setzt und weshalb der Zusatzbeitrag für sie zur roten Linie wird. ⁠Das kostenlose Probeabo für unseren neuen Newsletter findet ihr hier⁠. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Amazon: Unabhängige Verkaufspartner stehen heute für über 60 % aller bei Amazon verkauften Produkte. Ein Beispiel ist Alphatrail aus Regensburg: Michael und sein Team haben ihre Leidenschaft in ein erfolgreich wachsendes Unternehmen verwandelt. Über Amazon bietet Alphatrail Radsport-Fans in ganz Europa erstklassige Ausrüstung und Zubehör. Sie sind eines von rund 47.000 deutschen kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen bei Amazon. Erfahren Sie mehr darüber auf AboutAmazon.de.**

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

A Swedish American businesswoman who mentored young women sent photos of some of the “best and brightest” to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who selected those he wanted to meet. Barbro Ehnbom — who has been celebrated in Sweden for “boosting women to the top” in typically male-dominated sectors including life sciences and finance — proposed young women for the late financier to meet at his New York City home over more than a decade as part of her women’s networking club. There is no suggestion that any of the women Ehnbom proposed to Epstein were underage or were abused by Epstein. Ehnbom didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment but said in a LinkedIn post in Swedish that she was “disgusted to have had any kind of contact” with someone “exposed for actions that lack any defense.” In hundreds of emails between Ehnbom and Epstein, or his assistant Lesley Groff, their chatty, familiar manner paints a picture of an established relationship that benefited them both. The communications continued from 2005 through 2018 — after his 2008 conviction and during his 13-month jail term. He died by suicide in jail in 2019. Ehnbom later said that she was “deeply outraged” by the abuse girls had been subjected to. The exchanges released by the U.S. Department of Justice and reviewed by POLITICO show Ehnbom telling Epstein she was financially dependent on him to continue her projects in Sweden. These included the Swedish-American Life Science Summit, an invitation-only event for businesses, scientists, and investors that she co-founded. It also included her young women’s networking club, Barbro’s Best and Brightest — her “BBBs” — and Sweden’s Female Economist of the Year scholarship, both launched in 2001. In numerous emails, Ehnbom asked Epstein for money and, sometimes, introductions to his network of wealthy people. The emails suggested Epstein frequently deposited $25,000 to organizations linked to Ehnbom, and Ehnbom hinted that Epstein had made a $100,000 donation. FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL ELITE In the messages, one woman thanked him for the “inspiring, exciting, and thoughtful conversation.” Another who he booked on a trip to Africa after speaking with him, described it as a “dream coming true.” Ehnbom shared a LinkedIn post on Dec. 16 on social media platform X from a former “BBB,” Camilla Wagner, who said that while she had never met Epstein, she knew women “who, like many in the financial, political, and business elite, had contact with him before 2019 when his monstrous crimes became known. Judging the story behind it without context is easy, but rarely honest,” she said. “BBB is not a network for ‘pretty women,'” she said. “It is a network of competent women who help each other in the same way they always have. Doors are opened. Contacts are shared. Careers are made possible.” This LinkedIn post no longer appears to be visible. POLITICO tried to contact Wagner but received no response. POLITICO, which has not identified the women to protect those who may have been victims, contacted three women on LinkedIn mentioned by Ehnbom in emails to Epstein, and whose names have not been redacted, but none replied to a request for comment. By July 2017, Ehnbom had mentored around 200 women through her best and brightest program, she told Epstein. Between May 2005 and July 2016, she discussed around 10 gatherings of “BBBs” at Epstein’s house in New York City. One evening, only a “small gathering” of six to eight women was possible. More women attended on other evenings. PHOTOS AND NOTES Ehnbom would drop names of the Swedish and American dignitaries she knew, but mainly she would discuss her “BBB girls” and the young women she’d like him to meet.   Ehnbom sent him photos of women, along with notes on their appearance, sometimes their age and whether she thought they would suit him: “little beautiful dark haired girl”; “VERY ATTRACTIVE”; “little blond girl in the pink dress … she is very pretty I think …  I notice you seem to have similar taste”; “22 today!!” On occasion, Ehnbom mentioned the women’s professional qualifications. These types of messages continued after his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Over the years, their correspondence shows a pattern of Ehnbom proposing women to attend evenings at Epstein’s New York City home with champagne and canapés. They also show that some of these women would directly contact Epstein after these events. Several would go on to visit him alone, others he mentored and one was lavished with a vacation to Africa. Those who were in direct contact with Epstein were often incredibly polite, appeared hugely appreciative, and some seemed flattered to be considered for a job by him. Correspondence following Skype messages conveyed overwhelming gratitude for his time. For some, Skype conversations were quickly followed by a suggestion to visit him. In the case of one woman, he asked his assistant to book her on a flight from Sweden to New York just four days later, in January 2014. Ehnbom didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, by email and via LinkedIn. In a LinkedIn post in Swedish, she said: “I am deeply outraged by the abuse and harm that many girls have been subjected to. I feel disgusted to have had any kind of contact with the person who has now, posthumously, been exposed for actions that lack any defense. That feeling is shared by many who met him in professional environments and then perceived him as a respected and esteemed person — an image that has subsequently been reconsidered with horror.” Ehnbom also said that throughout her professional life, she has “worked with full transparency towards partners, educational institutions and other actors — in Sweden as well as internationally. This applies to assignments, collaborations, travels and professional contexts.” NAMES, PHOTOS AND DATES  Ehnbom’s relationship with Epstein predates his first jail term, coming after he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor. He was jailed in June 2008 in Florida, serving 13 months and granted extensive work release, allowing him to leave jail to work from his office during the day. In the years before he was jailed, Epstein would ask Ehnbom about specific women. “Jeffrey is wondering what ever happened with [redacted]? …and did you let the girl know she has a ticket to NY whenever she wants?” wrote Epstein’s assistant Groff in April 2006. She frequently wrote on Epstein’s behalf. Groff’s attorney told POLITICO she “spoke voluntarily with prosecutors and answered each and every question asked of her. Thereafter, she was told that she would not be prosecuted.” Ehnbom would suggest names, share photos and recommend dates for “BBB” evenings. She would propose meetings with women in New York, Paris and Sweden. “Is Jeffrey still in Paris? [redacted] could come and see him there from Lyons? Attached photos! Let me know!” she wrote in April 2008. Once his sexual offences were under investigation, Ehnbom remained loyal to Epstein. In a September 2007 email when he was facing the charges, she wrote:  “Why dont they go after that woman down there instead??!! … so sorry you have to go through all this shit.” Ehnbom kept in touch with Epstein when he was in jail, sending the sex offender updates on her various projects, photos of young women from her programs, and generally showing her support. “are you always out??? Wow, almost a full year now..?!! [How] do you feel now?” she wrote in June 2009, when Epstein would have been released from jail during the day. She often signed off saying she missed him. In an early 2009 email, during his sentence, she asked: “Did you like young [redacted] that I sent you last week?” It is not clear what she is referring to. Some of the women introduced to Epstein through Barbro also stayed loyal to him during his jail time for sex offences. In one email dated June 2009, a woman inquired of his assistant Groff: “How is he? Is he out yet? I heard from Barbro that he was permitted to work from time to time from his Florida office?”  In August of that year, another of Ehnbom’s women questioned if it was true that Epstein was out of jail, and asked to visit. Once his jail time was served, Epstein returned to hosting “BBB” gatherings at his New York home. Epstein and Ehnbom also spoke of women working as his “assistant” or for an undisclosed “job.” In 2013, Barbro suggested several women for him to speak with. He would vet their photos and resumes, then suggest they Skype.  “Barbo called … she is wondering if you have a job description for a job…she has 2 more girls she thinks may be good for you,” Epstein’s assistant Groff wrote to him in March 2013. To one woman, also in March 2013, Epstein wrote: “barbro suggested i contact you re a job in ny. could you please send me your resume.” She replied: “Unfortunately I have not had time to work that much in my life. I am turning 28 this summer. I was working full time as a fashion model before.” Epstein replied: “are you organized. computer literate . ? skpe tomomv?” “HAVE YOU FOUND A REPLACEMENT YET FOR [redacted] IF NOT SEND ME A JOB DESCRIPTION?” Ehnbom wrote in November 2013. “Early twenties , multilingual educated and organized,” Epstein replied. “[redacted] barbro suggested we skype, she said you wanted a job in the states?” Epstein wrote to a woman in January 2016. WEALTHY AND WELL-CONNECTED Ehnbom, now 80, taught business law and ethics at the Stockholm School of Economics and was a board member of the Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce. She had previously worked in the pharmaceutical industry and on Wall Street, according to her own website. She says on her website that she became “renowned for her valuable networks and her successful business-generating activities.”  Ehnbom also says on her website that she has been “passionate about supporting women in their professional careers,” as she found herself the only woman in male-dominated boardrooms. Her emails illustrate what appears to be a transactional relationship between Epstein and Ehnbom and her “BBBs”: He sends money, she suggests women for him to meet. “Here is my girl, sweet sparkling [redacted],” she wrote in April 2014. “you have good instincts, [redacted] is as advertised ― great,” Epstein wrote back in July. In an August 2012 email, Epstein asked “who is you r wife choice this year?” Ehnbom responds with an attached photo saying: “She is the one!” In another email dated March 2013 and simply titled “JE girl?” from Ehnbom, Epstein responds that he can fly her from Sweden to Paris to meet him. Many of these women were from Barbro’s best and brightest program, designed “to promote future women leaders through mentorship and interdisciplinary idea-exchange.” Barbro did not respond to questions about whether any of the women she proposed to Epstein were abused. In a separate LinkedIn post in Swedish, she said that she had “systematically collected and documented inaccuracies, insinuations and claims that are based on a narrative rather than verified facts. Several cases are currently being processed by the Media Ombudsman, and further investigations may be necessary.”   She also wrote: “My commitment has always been about opening doors to power, capital and networks for women ― nothing else.”  She went on to say that the Female Young Economist of the Year (FEOY) was financed through a fund administered by the School of Business, Economics and Law and that she did not receive any money in person. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS Emails show she had asked Epstein to act as guarantor for her New York apartment (which he declined), as well as asking him for help finding a “tough New York litigator to help me get compensation for a deal I put together for a US and Swedish co That closed today in Sweden.” “Only FEOY winners traveled to New York ― to start their jobs,” she wrote. The BBBs project grew out of the finalists.  She added that the “roundtable discussions” in New York concerned women who already lived there, and that participants were “established professionals, not young students.” The Stockholm School of Economics cut its ties with Ehnbom in 2015 when it was informed by the news agency Reuters that the school was a recipient of donations from Epstein.  Ehnbom sided with Epstein over the school. In a subsequent email to him, she wrote: “Huge thanks for giving BBB another chance!!” in response to transferring more money. She accused the dean of the school of being an “idiot” for throwing out the BBB program. The school told POLITICO: “Following an internal review, we were able to conclude that two foundations … were linked to Jeffrey Epstein.” These foundations had donated to the Barbro Ehnbom Fund, a separate entity controlled by Ehnbom.  The school “administered the fund but did not exercise active control over incoming donations and was not aware of who was behind the two foundations. At that time, we concluded that our internal controls regarding donors had been insufficient.” ” … We strongly distance ourselves from everything that has come to light thanks to the files and the work of the media.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer is off to China to try to lock in some economic wins he can shout about back home. But some of the trickiest trade issues are already being placed firmly in the “too difficult” box. The U.K.’s trade ministry quietly dispatched several delegations to Beijing over the fall to hash out deals with the Chinese commerce ministry and lay the groundwork for the British prime minister’s visit, which gets going in earnest Wednesday. But the visit comes as Britain faces growing pressure from its Western allies to combat Chinese industrial overproduction — and just weeks after Starmer handed his trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing tariffs on cheap, subsidized imports from countries like China. For now, then, the aim is to secure progress in areas that are seen as less sensitive. Starmer’s delegation of CEOs and chairs will split their time between Beijing and Shanghai, with executives representing City giants and high-profile British brands including HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders, and the London Stock Exchange Group, alongside AstraZeneca, Jaguar Land Rover, Octopus Energy, and Brompton filling out the cast list. Starmer will be flanked on his visit by Trade Secretary Peter Kyle and City Minister Lucy Rigby. Despite the weighty delegation, ministers insist the approach is deliberately narrow. “We have a very clear-eyed approach when it comes to China,” Security Minister Dan Jarvis said Monday. “Where it is in our national interest to cooperate and work closely with [China], then we will do so. But when it’s our national security interest to safeguard against the threats that [they] pose, we will absolutely do that.” Starmer’s wishlist will be carefully calibrated not to rock the boat. Drumming up Chinese cash for heavy energy infrastructure, including sensitive wind turbine technology, is off the table. Instead, the U.K. has been pushing for lower whisky tariffs, improved market access for services firms, recognition of professional qualifications, banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China, easier cross-border investment, and visa-free travel for short stays. With China fiercely protective of its domestic market, some of those asks will be easier said than done. Here’s POLITICO’s pro guide to where it could get bumpy. CHAMPIONING THE CITY OF LONDON Britain’s share of China’s services market was a modest 2.7 percent in 2024 — and U.K. firms are itching for more work in the country. British officials have been pushing for recognition of professional qualifications for accountants, designers and architects — which would allow professionals to practice in China without re-licensing locally — and visa-free travel for short stays. Vocational accreditation is a “long-standing issue” in the bilateral relationship, with “little movement” so far on persuading Beijing to recognize U.K. professional credentials as equivalent to its own, according to a senior industry representative familiar with the talks, who, like others in this report, was granted anonymity to speak freely. But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. | Jessica Lee/EPA Britain is one of the few developed countries still missing from China’s visa-free list, which now includes France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Sweden.  Starmer is hoping to mirror a deal struck by Canadian PM Mark Carney, whose own China visit unlocked visa-free travel for Canadians.  The hope is that easier business travel will reduce friction and make it easier for people to travel and explore opportunities on the ground — it would allow visa-free travel for British citizens, giving them the ability to travel for tourism, attend business conferences, visit friends and family, and participate in short exchange activities.  SMOOTHING FINANCIAL FLOWS The Financial Conduct Authority’s Chair Ashley Alder is also flying out to Beijing, hoping to secure closer alignment between the two countries’ capital markets. He’ll represent Britain’s financial watchdog at the inaugural U.K-China Financial Working Group in Beijing — and bang the drum for better market connectivity between the U.K. and China. Expect emphasis on the cross-border investments mechanism known as the Shanghai-London and Shenzhen-London Stock Connect, plus data sovereignty issues associated with Chinese companies jointly listing on the London Stock Exchange, two figures familiar with the planning said. The Stock Connect opened up both markets to investors in 2019 which, according to FCA Chair Ashley Alder, led to listings worth almost $6 billion. “Technical obstacles have so far prevented us from realizing Stock Connect’s full potential,” Alder said in a speech last year. Alder pointed to a memorandum of understanding being drawn up between the FCA and China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration, which he said is “critical” to allow information to be shared quickly and for firms to be supervised across borders. But that raises its own concerns about Chinese use of data. “The goods wins are easier,” said a senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “Some of the service ones are more difficult.” TAPPING INTO CHINA’S BIOTECH BOOM Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. China, once known mainly for generics — cheaper versions of branded medicine that deliver the same treatment — has rapidly emerged as a pharma powerhouse. According to ING Bank’s global healthcare lead, Stephen Farrelly, the country has “effectively replaced Europe” as a center of innovation. ING data shows China’s share of global innovative drug approvals jumped from just 4 percent in 2014 to 27 percent in 2024. Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. | John G. Mabanglo/EPA Several blockbuster drug patents are set to expire in the coming years, opening the door for cheaper generic competitors. To refill thinning pipelines, drugmakers are increasingly turning to biotech companies. British pharma giant GSK signed a licensing deal with Chinese biotech firm Hengrui Pharma last July. “Because of the increasing relevance of China, the big pharma industry and the U.K. by definition is now looking to China as a source of those new innovative therapies,” Farrelly said. There are already signs of progress. Science Minister Patrick Vallance said late last year that the U.K. and China are ready to work together in “uncontroversial” areas, including health, after talks with his Chinese counterpart. AstraZeneca, the University of Cambridge and Beijing municipal parties have already signed a partnership to share expertise. And earlier this year, the U.K. announced plans to become a “global first choice for clinical trials.” “The U.K. can really help China with the trust gap” when it comes to getting drugs onto the market, said Quin Wills, CEO of Ochre, a biotech company operating in New York, Oxford and Taiwan. “The U.K. could become a global gold stamp for China. We could be like a regulatory bridgehead where [healthcare regulator] MHRA, now separate from the EU since Brexit, can do its own thing and can maybe offer a 150-day streamlined clinical approval process for China as part of a broader agreement.” SLASHING WHISKY TARIFFS  The U.K. has also been pushing for lowered tariffs on whisky alongside wider agri-food market access, according to two of the industry figures familiar with the planning cited earlier. Talks at the end of 2024 between then-Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and his Chinese counterpart ended Covid-era restrictions on exports, reopening pork market access. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. “The whisky and brandy issue became China leverage,” said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “I think that they’re probably going to get rid of the tariff.”  It’s not yet clear how China would lower whisky tariffs without breaching World Trade Organization rules, which say it would have to lower its tariffs to all other countries too. INDUSTRIAL TENSIONS The trip comes as the U.K. faces growing international pressure to take a tougher line on Chinese industrial overproduction, particularly of steel and electric cars. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. | Yonhap/EPA But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. There’s a deal “in the works” between Chinese EV maker and Jaguar Land Rover, said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks quoted higher, where the two are “looking for a big investment announcement. But nothing has been agreed.” The deal would see the Chinese EV maker use JLR’s factory in the U.K. to build cars in Britain, the FT reported last week. “Chinese companies are increasingly focused on localising their operations,” said another business representative familiar with the talks, noting Chinese EV makers are “realising that just flaunting their products overseas won’t be a sustainable long term model.” It’s unlikely Starmer will land a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland.

Faced with an ageing population and rising chronic disease rates, Europe wants to make its citizens healthier. It also needs to keep its most powerful industries happy. In the basket of health policies that EU lawmakers rushed to get across the line before Christmas, industry was the big winner: The pharmaceutical, food and drink sectors walked away with a set of major policy wins — and (potentially) healthier profits. While the pharma industry previously feared losing some of its monopoly rights on new drugs, the Commission this month offered it an extra year of patent protection for novel biotech drugs — among the most expensive treatments in the world. The food and drink sectors, meanwhile, successfully pushed back against proposals to tax ultra-processed foods and alcopops, for now. On Dec. 16 the Commission published its Biotech Act and Safe Hearts Plan, which landed just days after a long-awaited update of the pharmaceutical legislation. Taken together, they seek to incentivize industries to innovate and do business in Europe, improve access to medicines, and tackle the burden of cardiovascular disease. The pharma industry broadly celebrated the biotech proposal. The Biotech Act “reflects priorities we’ve intensively advocated to keep Europe globally competitive in life sciences,” Ognjenka Manojlovic, head of policy at European pharmaceutical company Sanofi, told POLITICO. That includes accelerating clinical trials, boosting intellectual property, and strengthening financing for Europe’s biotech ecosystem, Manojlovic said. The pharmaceutical sector had pushed for longer monopoly rights in the pharma legislation. In the end they were kept at the current standard eight years — instead of being cut by two years as the European Commission had initially proposed. For Europe’s public health insurers, who pay for drugs, the decisions taken to maintain and then extend market protections for medicines are hard to square. “We are puzzled by the Commission’s intentions,” said Yannis Natsis, director of the European Social Insurance Platform, a network of Europe’s social insurance organizations, warning that taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. Meanwhile, health campaigners are also unhappy at the Commission’s “missed opportunity” to tackle obesity and heart disease with junk food taxes — as proposed in an earlier draft of the Safe Hearts Plan. Samuele Tonello, at consumer organization BEUC, said the Safe Hearts Plan “lacks teeth” to better protect consumers from unhealthy foods, and flagged the “urgency of [cardiovascular diseases].”  A MAN ON A MISSION Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The standout feature of his end-of-year bonanza was the 12-month patent extension in the Biotech Act I — legislation that was split in two late in the day, allowing Várhelyi to meet his end-of-year deadline for the pharma component. The proposal came just a week after the Commission, countries and MEPs clinched a deal to reform Europe’s pharmaceutical laws, in which IP rights were among the last issues to be settled. Updates to the pharma laws were a legacy of the last Commission, whereas the Biotech Act became something of a personal mission for Várhelyi. He repeatedly stressed that there was “no time to lose” in delivering a targeted policy aimed at revitalizing Europe’s flagging biotech industry, which risks being overtaken by competition from China and the U.S. Few commissioners are more vocal than Várhelyi about the premium they place on the competitiveness of European industry.  Industry insiders had heard whispers of his plans to expand IP incentives for the biotech sector, even if Council representatives were dismayed not to have been informed in advance — especially with the ink barely dry on the Pharma Package. That’s not to say pharma is happy with its lot. Industry lobby group the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) tempered its praise of the Biotech Act, lamenting that the extra year of monopoly rights would only apply to a “limited subset of products.”  The extra year of protection is tied to the Commission’s efforts to locate more pharma research and manufacturing in Europe. It would apply only to new products, tested and at least partially made in Europe.  But the generics sector, which makes cheaper, off-patent drugs to compete with branded medicines, sees the Biotech Act as a further sweetening of what is already one of the world’s most generous IP systems. Lobby group Medicines for Europe claims each year of delayed competition for the top three biologic drugs would cost countries €7.7 billion. Longer IP “will have a dramatic impact on healthcare budgets and delayed patients’ access to essential medicines,” said Adrian van den Hoven, head of the lobby. These kinds of estimates would normally be included in an impact assessment published alongside the proposal, but in its haste to get the Biotech Act out the Commission didn’t do one. POLITICO asked the Commission for an estimate of what the extra year of patent protection would cost. A Commission spokesperson would not give a figure but said they had used the impact assessment for the pharma legislation as a reference. “It is also important to stress that the number of products eligible for an additional year of SPC will be limited to only those that are truly innovative and tested and manufactured in the EU. The approach is deliberately targeted to incentivise genuinely innovative therapies that deliver a clear added value for patients and support European innovation,” the spokesperson said. LUCKY ESCAPE FOR UPFS The big food and drink sectors are on shakier ground with Várhelyi. The commissioner has repeatedly made known his distaste for ultra-processed food, and an early leaked version of the Safe Hearts Plan included new taxes on unhealthy highly processed foods and alcopops. But the final proposal showed the Commission had undertaken a significant climbdown. Concrete targets to tax unhealthy food and drink in 2026 were gone, replaced with a much woollier commitment to “work towards” such a levy. Alcopops were excluded altogether.  Industry lobby FoodDrinkEurope took a far more measured tone on the final plan than its explosive reactions to the earlier leaks, but that may well ramp up again if and when health tax proposals emerge. The text suggests the soft drinks industry may be the Commission’s first target if it does decide to pursue new levies, while UPFs remain in Várhelyi’s sights. “In the next couple of years, we will need to tackle the issue of ultra-processed food much more,” he told MEPs in December. For now, though, the plan seems to have let industry off easy. Health NGOs saw it as a disappointment, given its lack of hard-hitting policies to reduce consumption of UPFs and other unhealthy products. While the pharma legislation is all wrapped up, the Biotech Act still needs to win the approval of EU countries and the European Parliament. For the food and pharma sectors, the proposals set out this month are confirmation they have allies in the Berlaymont.

C-ANPROM/EUC/NON/0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Takeda * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around and industrial policy agenda, including the Pharma Package, Biotech Act, Life Sciences Strategy, and related digital and innovation frameworks. More information here

BRUSSELS — Europe needs to get its “act together” and unleash its potential in the pharmaceutical sector, supporting it with better incentives and ensuring access to innovation for patients, urged Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division. “Europe used to be the pharmacy of the world. Nine out of 10 new medicines were discovered in Europe. That’s no longer the case,” Oelrich, who is also president of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), said at the POLITICO 28 Gala Dinner. “We’re losing competitiveness rather than gaining.” China and the U.S. are pulling ahead on pharmaceutical innovation and clinical trials. About one third of medicines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) don’t make it to Europe, Oelrich said. And amid the U.S. tariffs threat, companies are increasingly looking outside of Europe for investments. But there is hope — both for the pharmaceutical industry and beyond. Per Franzén, CEO and managing partner at EQT, a global investment organization, said he is seeing “an unprecedented interest to invest into Europe.” “It’s a real window of opportunity, a unique moment in time for Europe,” he said. “In order to make the most out of that opportunity, what we need to do is really to drive a more business-friendly, more innovation-friendly agenda,” he said. But with the pace of change, driven by artificial intelligence, “time is of the essence,” he added. Over-regulation isn’t holding Europe back in medicines innovation, it’s a lack of substantial incentives for companies to invest in Europe, Oelrich said. But it doesn’t have to be this way, he said: “We have some of the best universities in the world that publish some of the coolest science in the world. So there is no reason why this wouldn’t work. And we need to get our act together,” he said. “Instead of trying to complicate our lives and come up with a new bureaucratic idea, we should come up with with ways of how we unleash our forces.”

BRUSSELS — EU lawmakers have clinched a long-awaited agreement on the bloc’s overhaul of its two decades-old pharmaceutical rules — one of the EU’s biggest health files. The revamp is designed to restore Europe’s competitive edge and give companies more certainty that the EU remains an attractive market, while also pushing for more equal access to medicines across member countries. The deal between the Parliament and the Council was struck at 5 a.m. on Thursday, more than two years after the Commission tabled the proposal, which consists of directive and regulation, in spring 2023.  It marks a major victory for the Danish presidency, which pledged to wrap up the file before the end of the year, and for Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, who has pushed to seal the reform amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Lobbyists for some of the world’s largest drug companies are parading a new pricing deal in the U.K. as a model the rest of Europe should emulate if it wants to keep drugmakers from bailing for America. To President Donald Trump and the lobbyists’ delight, British officials agreed to spend 25 percent more on new medicines in exchange for three years of tariff relief on pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. The move comes as major drugmakers like AstraZeneca and Merck scrap projects in the U.K., and the Trump administration uses tariff threats to get pharma to raise prices on Europeans in order to cut them for Americans. For Washington’s lobbyists, the deal reflects the new influence playbook, as Trump’s tariff threats force companies to negotiate directly with the White House. Industry leaders say the U.K. deal could serve as a template for how the EU and other major trade partners handle the Trump administration’s break from free market norms, and stay competitive. “The U.K. is the canary in the coal mine,” said Stephen Farrelly, global head of pharma and health care at ING, a Dutch bank. “The pressure is rising on the EU to do something similar.” Lobbyists for drug companies are pounding the point home. Dorothee Brakmann, general manager of Pharma Deutschland, Germany’s industry lobby, warned that if Germany did not pursue a similar path to the U.K., Trump’s tariffs presented a “real geopolitical risk.” “The UK-US agreement is an important signal for Europe’s pharmaceutical landscape. …[It] reinforces the need to reassess how we can make our own reimbursement system more flexible, more innovation-friendly and more internationally competitive,” she wrote POLITICO in a statement. Alex Schriver, senior vice president of public affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the U.S. industry lobby for brand-name drugmakers, echoed the German pharma group’s call for similar country deals. “The agreement establishes important first steps by the U.K. to pay its fair share for innovative medicines and directly benefits American patients by exempting medicines from tariffs. We encourage the Trump Administration to seek similar agreements with other nations,” Schriver said in a statement. Henrik Jeimke-Karge, spokesperson for Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller, another German pharmaceutical group, said that the lack of an EU agreement meant continued uncertainty for the region. “The pharmaceutical industry in the U.K. has now gained planning security. Such an agreement is still pending for the EU. …The risk of customs duties remains high and uncertainty persists,” he said in a statement. Trump has repeatedly blamed European pharmaceutical companies for higher U.S. drug prices, threatened a 100 percent tariff on pharmaceutical products and demanded drugmakers implement “most favored nation pricing,” which would bring U.S. prices in line with those paid in other wealthy nations. The threats have triggered British and European drugmakers to bolster their defenses on K Street, Washington’s lobbying corridor. Lobbying spending from July to September from GSK, AstraZeneca, Novartis, NovoNordisk, and Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, were the highest for the time period in at least a decade. Year-to-date spending from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are also at a 10-year high. European drugmakers are also ramping up their hiring of outside lobbying firms. DLA Piper, Corcoran & Associates, and B Hall Strategies registered to lobby for Novartis this year, which hired no new outside firms last year. Lobbyists for Novartis now include Richard Burr, the former top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Michael Corcoran, a prominent Republican lobbyist from Florida. Alkermes and Novo Nordisk have hired Ballard Partners, a Trump-connected lobbying firm, and Genentech has hired lobbyists at Miller Strategies, including Jeff Miller, a long-time Republican strategist and Ashley Gunn, a former special assistant to Trump in his first term. GSK, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, meanwhile, have all hired lobbyists at Checkmate Government Relations this year, including Fritz Vaughan, a Treasury official in the first Trump administration. “Policy is not siloed from business strategy right now,” said Allison Parker-Lagoo, deputy of the North America health practice at APCO, a public and government relations firm that advises drug companies. “The geopolitical environment is just requiring that everyone really think critically about how they’re showing up in each market that they operate in.” In exchange for tariff reprieve, five drugmakers, including AstraZeneca, EMD Serono and Novo Nordisk have cut deals with Trump to lower prices. The pharmaceutical industry has together announced more than $400 billion in commitments to U.S. manufacturing, research and development since January, according to ING, the Dutch bank, including a $50 billion commitment from Roche, $23 billion from Novartis, and $20 billion from Sanofi. “Trump is demonstrating that he’s willing to go further than anyone else to achieve his goals…Most companies and industries are having a conversation saying, ‘Let’s bring some solutions to the table,’ as opposed to just sitting back and holding the line,” said one health care lobbyist granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy. “It’s a big shift, and you don’t want to be the last one to the dance,” the lobbyist added. Concerns over Europe’s pharmaceutical competitiveness were mounting prior to Trump’s second term. E.U. spending on research and development grew on average 4.4 percent annually from 2010 to 2022, while U.S. spending grew by 5.5 percent and China by more than 20 percent, according to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, the EU’s pharmaceutical trade group, which did not respond to request for comment. Last year, the U.S. saw $6.7 billion in pharmaceutical manufacturing investments from foreign companies, compared to $5.9 billion in Europe, according to estimates from fDi Markets, a database owned by the Financial Times. Advocates for drug companies warned that the Trump administration’s pricing and tariff policies will accelerate the shift. “It speaks to the reorienting of the global biopharmaceutical economy…For the first time, the U.S. government is getting involved in the pricing and access behaviors of other countries,” said Kirsten Axelsen, a senior policy adviser at DLA Piper, a law and lobbying firm. “[Companies] are advocating…to avoid the types of policies that would really make it almost impossible to launch a drug in European countries.”