Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-172"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.12.3-172"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for the way in which he has approached this complex issue and his willingness to entertain a wide range of reservations across the Committee and where possible to approach these efficaciously; and also my colleague, Mrs Van Brempt, for her work on this. I have only time to deal with one specific area, and it does not in any sense detract from my belief that the effective regulation of dangerous pesticides must be a priority task of this Parliament, and, indeed, this Commission.
My reservations lie in the section addressed by Paragraph 13 of Mr Lannoye's report, where we are calling on the Commission to notify us by the end of this year of the measures taken to ensure that useful substances which have low toxicity levels, and appear on Priority Lists 3 and 4, which have not been notified because of a limited commercial interest, or of high evaluation costs, may be so evaluated with the help of an appropriate restricted data package.
Why am I so concerned about this? I am concerned because there is a danger that some products of high toxicity which have not yet been regulated or properly examined, are still remaining in the market, whilst others, which are of no conceivable danger and are very low on Lists 3 and 4, are going to be taken out of the market because those who produce them, and they do indeed in some cases come into the category of essential uses, are likely to be unable to produce the complex dossier needed to go through all of the processes initially set out in what, as the rapporteur says, has been an extraordinarily slow process.
I just want to give the Committee one example of this:
arguments are always dangerous, but I have a producer in my own area who turned to a particular plant protection range of products because he was himself alarmed by the effect of dangerous pesticides as he had seen them. If I talk of things like Agent Orange, you will know exactly what I mean. Truly harmful substances.
He has produced a product, which I use myself, called Armilatox which is the only effective way of treating plant diseases like Honey Fungus. There is no way he could pay the estimated cost for the assessment of that product which is in a low toxicity range. It would be two or three times his annual turnover.
There has to be some way in which we could help people of this kind come up to the standard necessary, or at least present the relevant dossier over the period of time we now have. If we do not do that, we are flying in the face of all the statements in this House, not least by the rapporteur's
party, that we should help small businesses. We should not just help the big battalions who can, of course, accept all of the high evaluation costs. If we do not do that in this very important area, we will have failed."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples