Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as draftswoman of my Committee’s opinion for the Breyer report concerning the Regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market, I should like to comment on the proposal.
In this proposal for a regulation, it is important that we should strike a balance between the following interests: on the one hand, there are the interests of consumers in healthy food without residues, in other words in safe plant protection products that do not endanger public health and the environment, and in clean drinking water; on the other hand, consumers also have an interest in a reliable supply of fresh and affordable products, and they want home-grown fruit and vegetables rather than those from countries outside the EU, given that there are scarcely any checks on the pesticides that have been used those countries.
Our farmers need certain plant protection products if they are to combat resistance. That cannot be done, however, without a certain number of protection products. At the same time they want safe, risk-free protection products. This is why we also believe that demonstrably carcinogenic substances must be banned. As regards the other licensing criteria, however, we intend to rely on scientific evidence and base our approach on maximum values. That is a balanced midway position that protects our consumers while guaranteeing that home-grown fruit and vegetables are affordable as well as being subject to adequate testing.
As far as informing neighbours is concerned, if we have stringent licensing criteria and if we test plant protection products properly, I cannot see why we have to go through bureaucratic procedures to alert neighbours and local residents to the use of plant protection products when they have not even asked for information. What are consumers supposed to make of such information? How, in practice, are farmers supposed to inform all their neighbours and all residents of the local area before they apply plant protection products? It is for these reasons that I argue passionately against the proposal made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which would impose this very requirement, and I also advocate rejection of the Commission’s proposed public information clause at this point, for if we have safe plant protection products we have no need for these bureaucratic procedures.
Let me make a very brief comment on the zonal approach. We are seeking greater harmonisation. That is the main point for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection too. The provisions proposed in the Breyer report would result in 27 national licensing zones. Our aim, after all, is harmonisation with due regard to the opinions of the Member States, which could adapt this authorisation to their own conditions of use. I therefore urge the House to support this harmonisation effort and to back the Commission’s zoning proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples