Olivér Várhelyi: The Controversial Choice for Health and Animal Welfare Commissioner

In September, Ursula von der Leyen announced the composition of the new College of Commissioners for her second term as President of the European Commission. Each Member State nominates a Commissioner and together with von der Leyen, who serves as Germany’s commissioner, they make up the College of Commissioners, each having responsibility for a particular policy portfolio. Assigning the portfolios is a highly political balancing act. Member states vie for what are considered the more prestigious and influential portfolios, or portfolios that are particularly relevant for their nation.

With the Member States having submitted their nominees and the portfolios assigned, the nominated Commissioners now face a final hurdle to overcome. They must still be approved by the Members of the European Parliament through a series of hearings held by relevant committees. Since 2004, at least one nominee has been rejected in every new Commission, leaving the exact composition of von der Leyen’s new team uncertain.?

A controversial figure?

The hearing of Olivér Várhelyi, the Hungarian Commissioner-designate for Health and Animal Welfare, is expected to draw particular attention. Várhelyi, who previously covered the portfolio for Neighbourhood and Enlargement, is no stranger to controversy. He previously drew criticism during a heated debate in the European Parliament when he called MEPs “idiots.” He also maintains close ties with Viktor Orbán, and tensions between Budapest and Brussels have been simmering for many years. Also, his nomination for a health-focused portfolio despite having no background in this subject has raised eyebrows. His hearing is set for November 6, where he will undergo a grilling from the Parliament Committee on Environment, Food Safety and Public Health (ENVI) and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). It will likely be one of the most contentious in this round of Commissioner hearings – he is widely considered to be the most likely to be rejected by the parliamentarians.?

?The role of the Health and Animal Welfare Commissioner?

Should Várhelyi secure the position, he would have oversight over several key topics. He would play a key role in shaping the EU's future health policies, including the response to future pandemics and the revision of pharmaceutical legislation. He would also be the first Commissioner to have “animal welfare” in his job title – a success for citizens and organisations who have been campaigning for this topic to be prioritised on the European agenda. His portfolio would also encompass food policy and food safety. This includes advancing the EU’s food sustainability agenda and addressing concerns over ultra-processed foods.

Hungary has previously demonstrated scepticism towards various initiatives aimed at making food and agriculture more sustainable. Earlier this year, it expressed its opposition to novel foods such as insects, plant-based foods and lab-grown meat, arguing that they threaten Europe’s culinary traditions. Sustainability was a key priority in the previous mandate; however, if Várhelyi is confirmed, it may become less of a focus. Additionally, in his written responses to the European Parliament ahead of his hearing, Várhelyi indicated that he would steer away from advocating for mandatory front-of-pack food labels, a measure considered during the previous Commission mandate. Instead, he expressed support for a more comprehensive, non-legislative approach that prioritises food information and reformulation, while aiming to minimise the burden on industry.?

?Uncertainty ahead?

Once the hearings are concluded and the MEPs have voted, the European Commission will be able to start its work in early December. This could, however, be delayed until January if the Parliament rejects candidates and the Member States are forced to find an alternative nominee. Consequently, the outcome of Várhelyi’s hearing could have far-reaching implications for the future of EU health and food policy, potentially prolonging our wait for clarity on their policy priorities in the upcoming mandate.?