The European Parliament recently approved the introduction of a cap on the production of "first-generation" biofuels. After lengthy negotiations, the EU body has decreed that they will not be allowed to exceed 7 per cent of the total fuels used in transport across Europe. The reason behind this decision is that not all biofuels are truly environmentally friendly. First-generation biofuels, for instance, are produced using food crops (such as rapeseed, soya or maize), and for this reason they are considered "non-ecological" by numerous environmental organisations.

Back in 2012, for example, the NGO Oxfam had published a report explaining that if the land currently used to produce alternative fuels were used for food crops, "127 million more people could be fed every year." This is a problem that second-generation biofuels should overcome, since their production is often based on waste or algae.

The figure set by the EU Parliament is, on the other hand, the result of a compromise: less than a year ago, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia had sent an open letter to Members of the European Parliament stating that, for them, "7 per cent is the lowest acceptable level." The French association Réseau Action Climat has, however, strongly criticised this position: "Although setting a cap is useful in any case, this level is too high. Today, fuels used in Europe contain on average 5 per cent first-generation biofuels: setting the limit at 7 effectively means granting further room for growth." Cyrielle Denhartigh, the association's head of agriculture, speaking to the newspaper Le Monde, accordingly accused Europe of having "given in to the industrial lobby" of producers.

However, according to Beppe Croce, head of agriculture at Legambiente, "the limit in itself is neither good nor bad. The real issue is understanding how biofuels are produced. Rather than focusing on first and second generation, the EU should have distinguished between those that directly compete with food or are harmful to the environment — which should be discouraged — and those that, under certain conditions, can prove useful, such as some oil-based ones, provided they do not derive from deforestation."