Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, being a non-legislative political document that accompanies the directive, responds to the fact that the risks of pesticide use are not decreasing. Today’s residue levels in food products exceed acceptable values: 44% of fruit is contaminated with pesticides, 5.5% of which contains the maximum residue level. Excessive residues were even found in the fruit being sold in the European Parliament premises. The aim of my report is to minimise the dangers and risks to health and environment that arise from the use of pesticides.
Firstly, I would like to stress that the use of pesticides is linked to the development of malignant tumours or immunological and other neurotoxic defects. That is why I found it surprising (unfortunately it was a bad surprise) that in its text the Commission mentions only in passing the health risks posed by the use of pesticides, in particular by their cumulative effect. Pregnant women, children and foetuses are the group most at risk. Although I am in favour of protecting plants, I think that first and foremost we have to protect people’s health. There is clearly a connection with climate change. Global warming will bring more pests: we cannot continue endlessly to increase the amounts of pesticides used.
The National Action Plans containing the Member States’ individual targets in terms of risk reduction are the most important part of the whole process. I consider the proposal in which the Commission rejects the quantitative use reduction targets to be insufficient. The phrase ‘to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on pesticides’ is imprecisely defined and will not prompt the Member States to lower the amount of pesticides used.
The Thematic Strategy is a general text and does not offer a detailed solution for calculating the amounts. However, my colleagues and I propose the following for the directive: a 50% reduction in the most dangerous substances that are, if used in certain large quantities, carcinogens and mutagens; the use of biological pesticides and pesticides that present little danger does not have to be reduced at present; the so-called frequency of application index will be used for other pesticides. The individual characteristics of, and conditions in, each Member State will be taken into account. It must be emphasised that quantitative indicators in the National Action Plans do not impose equal reduction of pesticide use on all countries. They will take into consideration the specific geographical conditions and arable farming systems of the given country.
It is true that an automatic reduction in quantity does not necessarily lead to risk reduction; however, it does so in many cases. The Thematic Strategy and the directive must deal with both crop protection measures and biocides. Protection of the aquatic environment from contamination by pesticides must be strengthened through the establishment of buffer zones along watercourses. Although I support the ban on aerial spraying, I accept that it will be possible to grant an exception under certain circumstances, in the absence of a more viable alternative. When aerial sprayings take place, the general public will be informed, by suitable means, about the time of spraying, the place and the substance used. The Strategy is not directed against farmers. I believe that all these measures can be taken without radical cuts in farmers’ budgets. This was proved by the Danish experience. All of us have to realise how important it is for farmers to be competitive, and we have to make sure that their products will not be replaced by products of farmers from developing countries.
To conclude, allow me to express my opinion on the amendments. I cannot agree with Amendment 4, which seeks to change the name of the entire Thematic Strategy. Although I want pesticides to be used with care, I think that we should leave the official name of the entire document as it is: after all it is an official name in the Official Journal and I think that it is suitable. I also want to mention Amendments 3 and 5, which deal with residential zones. Amendment 3 proposes to add the term ‘urban’: to me this means ‘suburban zone’ and thus excludes those who live in rural areas. The term ‘residential zones’ is both vague and imprecise. I also propose to amend paragraph 8 linguistically because the term ‘practitioner’ is a bad translation; in French it is even ‘
. I am going to finish, Mr President, and to conclude I would like to thank sincerely all those who worked on this report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"médecin’"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples