Have you ever wondered how the European Pharmacopoeia came into being? How did we arrive at a single pharmaceutical reference work now used so widely across Europe and beyond? What is the story that led us here, and why does it matter today?
In this episode, Pierre Leveau, Head of the EDQM Supply Chain Department, and Charlotte Lenoir, the EDQM’s Information Lifecycle Management Team Leader, take us on a journey through time: from accounts of medicinal knowledge in ancient China (2800 BCE), through Sumerian tablets in Mesopotamia showing early attempts to classify and standardise remedies, to Egypt’s Ebers Papyrus, one of the first efforts to systematise formulas and treatments, thereby paving the way for the regulatory frameworks that ensure the quality and safety of medicines today .
Along the way, we learn why medicine moved from oral traditions to the written word – to disseminate knowledge more widely, prevent falsification and ensure patient safety – and what motivated countries to develop official texts – including rules for testing medicines – that apothecaries were required to follow.
Finally, as politics evolved and borders shifted, the need to exchange medicines in times of crisis transformed the vision of “common standards” into concrete collective action, laying the foundations for a single reference work that contributes directly to the safety of millions of patients in Europe and beyond – the European Pharmacopoeia.
Join Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif, physician, health reporter and the host of #EDQMOnAir, as she explores the milestones that shaped this remarkable journey.
Transcription
Hello everyone and welcome to EDQM On Air, a podcast on public health brought to you by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM) of the Council of Europe. My name is Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif and today I’d like to take you on a journey through time – not just a few decades back, but much, much further – a journey that will help us better understand the fascinating history of pharmacopoeias and how the European Pharmacopoeia as we know it today came into being. To help us tell this story, I am delighted to welcome Pierre Leveau, Head of the Supply Chain Department here at the EDQM, and author of a book based on a lecture he gave on the history of the European Pharmacopoeia. Pierre, thank you for joining us here today.
- Pierre:
Hello Sarah.
- Sarah-Taïssir:
Right, before we go back in time, a quick note for our listeners: if you’re listening to the audio version of this podcast, I also invite you to check out the video version – the vodcast – because we’ll be heading to the archives to discover some particularly important and fascinating documents. The vodcast is also available with English subtitles. So, Pierre, I’d like to dive straight in. Let’s start with a fairly basic question: what exactly does the word ‘pharmacopoeia’ mean?
- Pierre:
That’s a very good question. As is often the case in medicine, it’s a word that comes from Greek and is made up of three parts. The first part is ‘pharmakon’. Now, ‘pharmakon’ could be translated as ‘medicine’ or ‘remedy’, but depending on the context, it could also mean poison. Next we have ‘poiein’ which is the act of doing, making or manufacturing things. And lastly a suffix, ‘ia’ which refers to the process. So, when you put them all together, you get a document that explains how medicines are prepared and tested. It’s a term whose meaning has changed significantly over time, and that has a lot of synonyms. For example, we have antidotary, codex, the latter still being in use today particularly in the USA in the food industry, the food codex or Codex Alimentarius. The term “pharmacopoeia” came into use around the 15th century.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Ok, so it’s relatively recent.
- Pierre
It’s not very new, but it’s not all that old either.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Yes, ok. It’s interesting that it can mean both remedy and poison.
- Pierre:
Yes, both. As is always the case in pharmacy, medicine and poison go together. The medicine is the dose so the two are intrinsically related.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Very much so. As I said in the introduction, the history of pharmacopoeias goes back a very long way. But when and where did it all actually begin?
- Pierre:
Well, that’s a really, really difficult question, because tracing the history of pharmacopoeias is, in a way, tracing the history of humanity since, from the outset, humans have always tried to treat and heal themselves. So we can mention key dates and important documents that have survived, but obviously, we can’t be exhaustive. So perhaps the first one: let’s go straight to China in 2800 BCE, where a legendary emperor, Emperor Shennong, began compiling texts mainly on herbal and animal materials, minerals too, describing the treatment of illnesses. Some of them are still in use today, for example in traditional Chinese medicine. The story goes that this emperor tested his book on himself!
- Sarah-Taïssir
Really?
- Pierre:
Yes, he was actually very ill at one point because he tried out remedies that weren’t necessarily the best. But nonetheless, some of what he proposed was still used and indeed is still in use today. So that really was the very beginning. And then, if we want to move on, we have to make quite a leap forward in time. Now we go to Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates, which roughly corresponds to what is now Syria and Iraq, where tablets, inscribed clay tablets, the first Sumerian tablets were discovered at Nippur. They too describe certain remedies. So here, we realise that there is a very, very strong link between illness, which is seen somehow as a divine punishment, and the remedies used to treat it. So these Sumerian tablets – if you’d like to see them, some of them are exhibited in the Louvre Museum – so you can actually go and see them, and in cuneiform, you can see the first attempts to classify and standardise remedies. And then, of course, history, well we simply can’t help but focus on the Egyptians – such a great civilization – and we have the first papyrus, known as the Ebers Papyrus, which really began to systematise all the remedies. This papyrus is packed with information. And obviously, what was it all for? Because, at least initially, bodies were embalmed. So there are several steps involved in embalming. In particular, all the organs and soft tissues are removed, and then what is needed? The body must be dehydrated. And to dehydrate the body, use all sorts of products are used. In particular, alum, which we still use in our deodorants today, and a substance called natron. Now, natron is sodium carbonate, and back then, it was very, very, very expensive. It had to be brought in from the oases, so it was very expensive. And even back then, there were some crafty individuals who tried to mix natron with other substances. So the embalmers had to make sure that the natron they received was of the right quality.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Even back in Egyptian times, they had to ensure the quality of the products they used.
- Pierre
Exactly. Because, on top of that, back then, the first mummies were those of the royal family. So, if the mummy wasn’t done properly, you can imagine the consequences for the embalmer: generally, it meant death, so there was no room for error. And so, to give you a rough idea, research carried out in 1994 at the end of the 20th century showed that 250 kilos of natron were needed for a single mummy; these are very large quantities, so there was no room for error. So, it was obviously very, very expensive. And all of this led to the fact that the quality and the tests required to put this into practice were documented. And in this Ebers Papyrus, it’s really interesting because we have the earliest known medicinal formulas. In particular, we have a painkiller, again containing alcohol and opium – still in use today – but then, more surprisingly, fly droppings that had to be collected from the walls. Ah yes, it’s very surprising to us, but these were typical ingredients of the time. And so this papyrus is also the earliest record we have of the classification of abscesses and tumours. In fact, it is the first document to refer to cancer. So it really is the forerunner of such documents. And there you have it, a brief historical overview: the Egyptians, and then we’ll move on, particularly to Italy with certain pharmacopoeias.
- Sarah-Taïssir
It’s very interesting that they described not only the remedy, but also, of course, the disease – the pathology they were trying to treat –and that we already find references to cancer and to other diseases. Can you tell us about any others from these Sumerian tablets? What was described?
- Pierre
Well, for instance, they describe types of abscess – and when we talk about types of abscess, you can imagine some rather unpleasant things – types of pus: is it thick, is it runny, is it solid? We’ve come a long way since then, but we still describe these kinds of things to characterise infections, for example. So, is the discharge runny or solid, is it a solid tumour, or fluid-filled? And the Egyptians had already discovered certain things.
- Sarah-Taïssir
That’s really interesting. And for our listeners, you should plan a visit to the Louvre to see those famous Sumerian tablets in Paris. In your book, you describe a major turning point: the shift from oral traditions to written texts. Why was this transition so important and so decisive in the history of pharmacopoeia?
- Pierre
Well, that’s really crucial, because it became apparent over time, that there was a need to homogenise, to standardise. In fact, with all these remedies, since humans will always strive to find the best remedy to treat themselves with. So the idea was really to harmonise things and choose the best. So we moved from a largely oral tradition, passed down from master to disciple, to a need to disseminate knowledge alongside the development of cities and states. And so we moved from the oral to the written word. This need to standardise also created a need to describe and document things, and a need to disseminate knowledge. So, of course, counterfeits also appeared. We already touched on that in relation to the Egyptians, and it continued. Unfortunately, it is intrinsically linked to the history of pharmacy. And of course as a pharmacist, I cannot overlook Galen. He is truly, truly very important in the history of medicine and pharmacy. So who was he? Galen was a Greek physician of the 2nd century, who was appointed the emperor’s personal physician. So he treated Marcus Aurelius, holding a very high position.
- Sarah-Taïssir
A very high position.
-Pierre
Very high indeed. Because just imagine administering substances to the emperor. There’s no room for error. And Galen didn’t make any mistakes; in fact, he saved the emperor, and so Galen became the maker of the imperial theriac. So, what is theriac? Theriac is a bit like a magic antidote. It’s the medicine that cures just about everything, a cure-all that endured for centuries. It wasn’t a brief phenomenon in history; it’s something that lasted a very, very long time. Theriac is a mixture of lots of ingredients; things like opium extract, as always, and then some very, very strange things like viper flesh, less pleasant things, and Galen himself standardised the production of theriac. He also realised that people were starting to counterfeit these formulas. So there were some crafty individuals selling what was, in fact, false theriac, but under Galen’s name. To prevent all that, he put all his formulas, all his recipes, in writing. He drew up an official list of remedies, and this really marks the shift from master and disciple, towards the written word.
- Sarah-Taïssir
So it was really in the effort to standardise and ensure the safety of the medicine, to ensure that the remedy had not been tampered with, that we turned to the pharmacopoeia, to the written word, or rather to the written recipe.
- Pierre
That’s exactly right. It was to avoid errors, particularly misunderstandings of formulas. Everything was set down in writing, standardised, and that way there were no more problems; we followed the recipes because, let’s not forget, Galen gave his name to galenic pharmacy. We still use the term ‘magistral preparations’ – galenic preparations – which comes from Galen. It was he who really put all that down in writing and began to standardise it.
- Sarah-Taïssir
So we can already see that harmonisation is integral to the history of the pharmacopoeia, whether in Galen’s time or in the European Pharmacopoeia as we know it today.
- Pierre
Absolutely, yes. We’re very much part of a tradition that ultimately has the same aim: to prevent counterfeits and ensure patient safety. Ultimately, it’s always the same thing.
- Sarah-Taïssir
And once these pharmacopoeias or these recipes had been put into writing, how were they disseminated? How were these texts used, and at what point did we start to see these remedies, these written recipes, being disseminated beyond local and national borders?
- Pierre
Well, that’s a very good question. I can’t say there was a specific date when everything changed. It was really a process that unfolded over time, but we can say that it mainly began somewhere in the Middle Ages. So, in the Middle Ages, we started to see documents that had official status because we moved from a book that everyone followed to a book that everyone had to follow. And here there are a few that we can mention, such as the Antidotarium Nicolai, or Nicolas’ antidotary which, as we said earlier, is a synonym for pharmacopoeia This book began to establish – once again – the how to prepare a medicine and laid down the early rules for medicine testing. However, above all, this book took on an official status. For example, in Paris, this antidotary became the reference work, the foundation stone, of pharmacists’ studies. This is the first time we have such a clear record of a book taking on an official character. It also took on an official character in certain towns, particularly in Montpellier. It is well known that, in France, this town is one of the true cradles of pharmacy, and Montpellier then made this antidotary mandatory so there was no choice but to comply. A few years later, the European Pharmacopoeia did the same. And then there’s a second aspect: the mandatory nature of owning the book. The book was official, and apothecaries were obliged to own a copy.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Really? So it became a legal obligation?
- Pierre
It did indeed. And so they were officially required to follow what was written in the book and to keep a copy of it. It’s actually the same thing today: the Public Health Code in France requires hospital and community pharmacists to own certain publications, including in particular the French Pharmacopoeia and the European Pharmacopoeia.
- Sarah-Taïssir
What’s interesting is that these pharmacopoeias, these texts, they don’t just give the formula, the recipe, they also describe how to prepare and test the medicine – how to ensure its quality?
- Pierre
Exactly, that’s exactly right. In fact, as we look at how things have developed, we see that apothecaries used to make medicines, but then the state started to say that it was very dangerous because you are affecting people’s health. So, there’s the manufacturing side, and then there’s always the counterpart: control, testing. And so, gradually, pharmacopoeias incorporated tests to verify quality. This is what I was talking about when I referred to the Egyptians and natron; they must have carried out simple taste and smell tests. It’s the same thing. It began with organoleptic tests. Is it sweet? Is it salty? Is it sour? Is it bitter? In the early days of the European Pharmacopoeia, we had this sort of test.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Well, it’s certainly not delicious!
- Pierre
Some things taste absolutely dreadful. I remember, when I started my career, we’d go into the lab in the morning and smell the plastics. It was a test that was described. These are tests that have, of course, now disappeared from the European Pharmacopoeia. But we started with organoleptic tests. So, at the time, the Antidotarium Nicolai, in particular, began to describe certain tests. And then this continued over the years, of course.
- Sarah-Taïssir
That’s really interesting and it reminds me a lot of my medical studies, where we were taught about diagnosing diabetes – we’d smell people’s urine to see if it was sweet. So we can see that the use of the senses has always been integral to pharmacy and medicine.
- Pierre
Absolutely, it’s been very important, and we still have tests; currently in the pharmacopoeia, we have visual examination. That’s maybe the first test to perform. What colour is it? Are there small crystals? Is it a powder? It’s very important. So we can see that we’re part of a tradition whose foundations we’ve actually inherited from long ago!
- Sarah-Taïssir
Exactly. You’ve touched on this already, but scientific advances are often closely linked to the political and historical context, to major movements. And for you, what are the key moments that have truly shaped the evolution and even the harmonisation of pharmacopoeias? What are the major historical or political milestones?
- Pierre
Well, as I said earlier, to trace the history of pharmacopoeias is to trace the history of humanity. We cannot ignore political developments. In particular, this was a rather deep-rooted and international movement towards unification, with a move from very local political situations, the city, the principality, to entities that would begin to group together into principalities, states and nation-states. And so pharmacopoeias really followed this political evolution, and we moved from a local pharmacopoeia to a regional pharmacopoeia and to a national pharmacopoeia. A great example in Europe is the Italian pharmacopoeia. That is a truly excellent example, because, as we know, Italy was not unified at the beginning, so there were cities, city-states, and consequently pharmacopoeias that reflected this, for example the pharmacopoeia of Siena, the pharmacopoeia of Turin, and, of course, the pharmacopoeia of Florence. And so, gradually, with the unification of Italy, by the end of the 19th century, a single pharmacopoeia had been established: the Pharmacopoeia of the Kingdom of Italy. So this trend, I’m using Italy as my example, is a general trend that was seen everywhere, in fact. And so cities began to merge, countries were formed, and beyond countries, more international groupings emerged. So, in our case it’s Europe, which is a grouping of nation-states, but this was also happening elsewhere, on an international scale.
- Sarah-Taïssir
So we see it at local, regional and national levels, and now at a supranational level with the European Union.
- Pierre
That’s exactly right. In fact, it’s a global trend, a trend towards harmonisation everywhere, because obviously, whether we live in the Arctic Circle or on the shores of the Mediterranean, the human body is the same. So people have always tried to get the best treatment and avoid counterfeits, of course. And so we’ve followed the political trend.
- Sarah-Taïssir
We’ll touch on that later, the theme of harmonisation in the very broad, global sense. But first I’d like us to focus on the European Pharmacopoeia; in particular, if you were to trace its more recent history from its beginnings up to the middle of the last century, what moments stood out most for you?
- Pierre
Well, yes, there are many events that led to the creation of this European Pharmacopoeia. It might be interesting, given that we’re here in Strasbourg, which is the headquarters of the EDQM. This is the city that hosted the first pharmaceutical conference.
- Sarah-Taïssir
What year was that?
- Pierre
It was at the end of the 19th century, when the first meeting of people who were going to work on pharmacy took place. Then we fast forward a little. Surprisingly, one of the countries that pushed for it creation was Belgium. At the time, Belgium had this desire to create an international pharmacopoeia. This really ties in with what we were saying earlier, this need to come together, and one of the Belgian pharmacopoeias, the van Mons Pharmacopoeia, already stated in its introduction that it would be good for countries to come together in a commission to create a pharmacopoeia of Europe. And that was in the 1800s. So, in fact all the foundations had already been laid: a commission – currently, we have a European Pharmacopoeia Commission – and a pharmacopoeia of Europe, and we have the European Pharmacopoeia. So, Belgium pushed to try and create this international pharmacopoeia and established something under the auspices of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. So at the League of Nations level, they set something up but it wasn’t very successful. To be honest, it didn’t work out very well. They tried again later, but it didn’t bear fruit because, in the meantime, the World Health Organization, the WHO, had created this International Pharmacopoeia, this time under the auspices of the United Nations, under the United Nations Charter. And so, in the 1950s, the first edition of the International Pharmacopoeia was published. This version of the International Pharmacopoeia, even now, does not have legal force in every country. It is not binding. It was optional in some respects, and mandatory in others, but not imposed. But there was still a desire in all countries to create this pharmacopoeia, particularly among European nations, mainly to facilitate the exchange of medicines between countries, because if there is a disaster somewhere, it is necessary to be able to exchange medicines, and so it wasn’t until the creation of what is called the Treaty of Brussels that a group of five countries actually started work on this Pharmacopoeia of Europe. Later on, another body was created, the Western European Union, which brought in another two new countries. This organisation is not very well known because was later dissolved. And all of this takes us up to the 1960s and the very beginnings of the European Pharmacopoeia.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Thank you for sharing that, Pierre. To continue this story up to the present day, we’ll now take a look at the archives, where we’ll be joined by Charlotte Lenoir.
- Charlotte
So, in 1960, there was a shift: certain activities of the Western European Union were transferred to the Council of Europe. The seven countries concerned signed a partial agreement and pursued the activities of the working group that had already been established until 1963. The idea was simple, but nonetheless ambitious. The aim was to establish common specifications for medicines that each state could then officially recognise. In the spring of 1963, the Council of Europe’s Sub-Committee on Pharmaceutical Matters formally recommended the creation of a European Pharmacopoeia. In practical terms, what did this involve? Bringing together the national commissions within a European Pharmacopoeia Commission, which would have a technical secretariat supported by expert groups, whilst also having a laboratory capable of verifying analytical methods. In June 1963, the final details were settled. Thus, the name ‘European Pharmacopoeia Commission’ was adopted, its headquarters were established in Strasbourg, and a convention was drafted to provide it with a solid legal framework. On 17 March 1964, the Committee of Ministers’ resolution authorising the creation of a European pharmacopoeia was adopted. The resolution defined the terms of the Convention and opened it for signature by governments. This was the key date. We moved from a technical aspiration to a political decision. From that moment on, events unfolded rapidly. The texts provided that work could begin even before the Convention entered into force. On 28 April 1964, the Commission met for the first time in Strasbourg, a meeting during which the practical organisation, timetable and priorities were discussed. Switzerland soon became the eighth member state of the partial agreement, joining France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. At the same time, the European Economic Community (EEC) had been considering its own pharmacopoeia for the common market, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome and Article 13 of Directive No. 2 on medicinal products. Rather than duplicating efforts, roles were divided, and this collaboration, established in the 1960s, remains a key feature of relations between the two organisations. And so here is the first concrete result. The first edition of the European Pharmacopoeia, published in 1969 in French and English. Very soon, a second volume added monographs on biological products, radioactive substances, serums, vaccines and blood components. And this tool is not merely a book; it is a common language for describing, identifying and controlling quality. In 1975, EEC Directive 75/318 incorporated the European Pharmacopoeia into the regulatory framework, rendering these monographs mandatory for marketing authorisation dossiers for medicinal products for human use in its member states. A few years later, in 1981, EEC Directive 88/152 extended this requirement to medicinal products for veterinary use. From then on, the same requirements applied, whether for medicines for human or veterinary use. In short, in just over fifteen years, Europe moved from expert co-operation to a commission and a convention, from an emerging compendium to a published reference work, and from recommendations to binding requirements incorporated into law. The very tangible result is that the same medicinal product is defined, analysed and controlled according to the same criteria, regardless of borders. For the authorities, this facilitates assessment. For the industry, it clarifies the rules, and for patients, it builds confidence. This period from 1960 to 1980 laid the foundations: a governance framework, a common text and then legal force. It is this threefold approach that enabled the European Pharmacopoeia and later the EDQM to protect public health on a daily basis, in a transparent, verifiable and shared manner.
- Sarah-Taïssir
So Pierre, we have just heard Charlotte mention several key moments that helped shape the European Pharmacopoeia as we know it today. A pharmacopoeia that, of course, continues to evolve and, as we have seen, that is part of a much broader, much longer history: that of pharmacopoeias around the world. But today, how has the role of the pharmacopoeia evolved on the international stage?
- Pierre
Well, it has indeed evolved significantly, in several ways. So, the first thing we could mention is obviously the number of member states, if I may put it like that. We’ve had a lot of member countries join us. So, currently, we have 39 member states, plus the European Union, which has joined us. And alongside these member states, we have what we call observer countries, which follow the work of the European Pharmacopoeia – 33 observers. So, we can see that on the international stage, this represents a large number of countries in Europe.
- Sarah-Taïssir
Indeed.
- Pierre
So that is really the first aspect, and then there is a second aspect, which is the content, because obviously, since theriac – which is opium and alcohol – we have now moved on to cover virtually all therapeutic classes; everything you might find in a pharmacy, everything you might find in a hospital, is covered by the Pharmacopoeia as part of our mandate. So, what is in there? There are the old products that are still in use, but alongside them, there are vaccines, toxins and other therapeutic products. So there are really a great many things that have shaped this pharmacopoeia.
- Sarah-Taïssir
So basically, the Pharmacopoeia has changed in terms of the numbers of its member and observer states, becoming even more international, but also through the number and variety of therapeutic classes that it has come to cover.
- Pierre
That’s exactly right. We now have much broader geographical coverage, so the pharmacopoeia’s legal standing has really expanded in terms of the area covered and, of course, the therapeutic classes have evolved over time. Obviously, science has moved forward, and so what we used to detect by smell is now detected using much more sophisticated analytical techniques. The basic aims remain the same; it’s the form that has changed.
- Sarah-Taïssir
We certainly have taken a trip down memory lane. But if we were to look ahead now, 100 years from now, what would we say about our pharmacopoeia and what do you think it might look like?
- Pierre
Well, yes, that really is a complicated question, because looking ahead is always tricky. But I think I can safely say that there are two important aspects. The first aspect is the format. So, since the 12th edition, since January 2026, we’ve moved to a completely digital format for the pharmacopoeia, so we no longer have physical books. It’s a fully digital version. So we can imagine that in the future, we’ll continue with this digital approach. Perhaps we can imagine that in the future, we’ll have a better connection between the test and the machine, meaning automatic links between the equipment and the official platform. That, I think, is something that will develop. Obviously, I think artificial intelligence will play a major role, probably to reduce the risk of missing something. Personally, I really see artificial intelligence as a decision-making tool, most likely. So that’s the first aspect. The second aspect is, of course, the content. Obviously, the content will continue to evolve in line with the therapeutic discoveries ahead. What else? We can say, without much risk of being wrong, that medicine will very likely evolve towards increasingly personalised treatments. And that’s a real challenge for the pharmacopoeia. Because this implies a shift away from mass-produced drugs to tailored treatments. So that is probably an area we will have to work on. Alongside that, of course, gene and cell therapies – long anticipated – are now truly emerging, coming into play, and they pose another real challenge for the pharmacopoeia. These are treatments you can’t prepare weeks ahead of time and so testing has to be extremely quick. This is why I mentioned artificial intelligence which might be able to help in this context. We will very likely also continue to add older therapies such as plants from different countries into the pharmacopoeia. We’ve already incorporated plants from traditional Chinese and Indian medicine and this is perhaps something that will continue in the future, this ethnobotanical aspect. So that, I think, is really where the developments lie. In addition, we’ll obviously be dependent on political developments, on how our continent evolves in the future, but clearly, we’ll continue to have a pharmacopoeia that welcomes new members. And then, another strong possibility is that the evolution that I’ve traced back to the Egyptians will continue, this desire for internationalisation, since medicines are, of course, international. We no longer have a ‘Luxembourgish’ medicine, we now have a globalised medicine, and so, on the world stage, pharmacopoeias will very likely follow this trend towards internationalisation.
- Pierre
Thank you, Pierre, for sharing your insights and expertise. We’ve learnt a great deal. Thank you again. That brings us to the end of this episode of EDQM on Air. A big thank you to our guests, Pierre and Charlotte, to the production team and, of course, to you for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, please do subscribe to our podcast on your favourite platform and feel free to get in touch. Find us on LinkedIn and Facebook. I’m - Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif. Thank you for tuning in and see you soon.
