How to secure a sustainable future for the EU livestock sector in light of the need to ensure food security, farmers' resilience and the challenges posed by animal diseases?
Adopted 426 for · 119 against · 40 abstentions · 134 did not vote
Details
The whole chamber
Seating as in the European Parliament chamber, in this order: The Left, S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew, EPP, ECR, PfE, ESN and the non-attached members.
How each group voted
| Group | For | Abst. | Against | Did not vote | Cohesion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPP | 134 | 4 | 1 | 46 | 96% |
| S&D | 72 | 4 | 32 | 27 | 67% |
| PfE | 71 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 100% |
| ECR | 66 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 93% |
| Renew | 44 | 5 | 16 | 12 | 68% |
| Greens/EFA | 0 | 1 | 44 | 8 | 98% |
| The Left | 0 | 12 | 23 | 11 | 66% |
| ESN | 24 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100% |
| NI | 15 | 9 | 3 | 3 | n/a |
Source: European Parliament roll-call votes, via HowTheyVote (ODbL). Collected 8 November 2026.
How each country voted
Click a country to see its MEPsSource: European Parliament roll-call votes, via HowTheyVote (ODbL). Collected 8 November 2026.
Winning majority
The winning side was For. Each group's position is the option chosen by most of its members who voted.
By country
About this vote
Reference: A10-0088/2026
Procedure: 2025/2053(INI)
Committee: AGRI
30 April 2026, 12:25 · Strasbourg plenary
Debate: 30 April 2026 (verbatim report and video)
Method
Cohesion is the share of the group's voting members who followed the group position, the option chosen by most of them. Off the group line: an MEP who voted differently from their group's position. Prepared with AI tools and reviewed by a person before publishing. Report an error: radar@parleon.eu.