Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.8.3-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for ten years now there has been a broad consensus in Europe about tackling the pesticide problem. There is also a broad consensus that the present legislative framework is inadequate and must be supplemented by a Community strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. That is why in my report I also welcome in detail all the Commission’s proposals. I believe that the Commission’s proposals are good but not ambitious enough, and the Commission is also not ambitious enough in its timetable.
Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the present regulatory framework is inadequate. We are all in favour of setting out a number of steps. I am therefore asking my fellow MEPs to support the report, which I know is especially ambitious.
Given the resistance to the report and the vote on it in the Commission that we Members of the European Parliament have all experienced over the last few days, I would nevertheless like to linger for a moment on a number of challenges regarding this problem which concerns us all.
Pesticides are increasingly becoming an environmental and health problem. We are not only talking about obsolete stocks of pesticides here, however, although it is important to tackle that problem very meticulously. We are talking about much more than that, however; our drinking water, our surface water and our groundwater contain more and more residues, and these days even rainwater no longer complies with drinking water standards. Drinking water companies must invest capital to remove these residues. Furthermore, about half of our fresh food contains residues.
The medical evidence that pesticides cause a number of Western diseases should be causing us great concern. Pesticides cause cancer, mental illnesses and fertility problems. If farmers are having to produce our food in a sort of spacesuit, should we not be asking ourselves whether we should not be organising our food production differently?
For all these reasons, and for so many other reasons too numerous to mention here due to a lack of time, I want to emphasise in my report that we need a strategy to reduce use as well as a strategy to reduce risks. A sustainable solution for the future also lies in a systematic reduction in the use of chemicals in favour of preventative and other alternative measures.
We will not solve resistance problems by using more but by using less. I challenge all of you to find a doctor who says that the problem of resistance to antibiotics can be solved by using more antibiotics. We know that this is impossible, so as far as that is concerned let us recognise the reality of the situation.
The second point for attention for which there is a consensus in this Parliament is the need for greater scope for the strategy. Yes, the agricultural sector is extremely important, but governments – particularly local authorities – amateur gardeners, industry and the railways are also major users and it really would be foolish not to include these in our strategy. We must therefore not ignore these, just as we should not ignore the use of biocides.
Another difficult problem that is particularly controversial is the use of GMOs. Do we want to go from bad to worse or do we want to aim for sustainability? After all, the vast majority of genetically modified crops are resistant to herbicides. The agrochemical industry has promised that genetically modified crops will contribute greatly to reducing the use of pesticides and their risks. I would like to believe this, I would like to be open to it, but reality is proving them wrong. These promises are not currently coming true; after a few years, genetically-modified soya, genetically-modified maize and genetically-modified beet all require more herbicides than conventionally farmed crops. In our report we are asking for the precautionary principle to be applied and for GMOs not to simply be used as a safe and sustainable alternative. I am asking for no more than this, but I am also asking for no less.
Then there is the cost. In Europe we have still not properly added up what the use of pesticides actually costs society. As long as ten years ago the United States calculated that the social costs amount to approximately USD 2.5 to 4 billion per year. The question is: do we want to internalise that in the cost price, do we want the polluter to pay? That brings us to the use of taxes and levies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples