Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my British fellow Members sometimes use the expression ‘An apple a day keeps the doctor away’. This is the way it should be! Fruit and vegetables are normally healthy types of food, but unfortunately this is not always the case. In far too many cases there are pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables and naturally this has direct negative consequences for human health. The subject that we are concerned with here is therefore very important. Consequently, it is very important that we use these substances in a sustainable manner, so that we can reduce their usage in those cases where we use too many pesticides. Our nature, environment and health are being damaged, and groundwater sources may also be contaminated.
Therefore, I also believe there is reason to criticise the Commission, particularly because you, Mr Kyprianou, are known (in my country, too) as a man who is very concerned with consumer interests and have done a considerable amount to safeguard the environment and health. I do not understand how you can stand here today and defend a proposal from the Commission concerning zone division that will force European countries to lower their environmental protection levels and will also force European countries to reduce their levels of consumer protection.
Allow me simply to give a couple of examples of what this will mean if we accept the proposal that you have put forward. In Denmark around 100 types of pesticide are permitted. We have reduced the use of pesticides by around 50% since the beginning of the 1980s. I am sure you will agree that this is a very sensible thing to do. If your proposal is implemented, we will be forced to double the number of pesticides permitted in Denmark. Double the number of pesticides! This will probably mean that we will find it very difficult to continue drinking our groundwater untreated as we do today.
I do not view this issue purely as a national one. I speak on behalf of the entire Socialist Group in the European Parliament and fortunately also on behalf of the vast majority who made their views clear through the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. There are many examples. In every single zone, it is of course the case that every country apart from one will be forced to approve pesticides that they do not currently approve. Let me give an example of one crop: maize. In the UK a maize pesticide is used that contains around 15 active substances. In Hungary 57 active substances are used, while in Poland 37 are used. However, if the Commission’s proposals are implemented every country will therefore approve pesticides that could contain up to 57 active substances. This means that in the UK the level will be quadrupled. It should not be the EU’s task to force countries to use more pesticides. It will affect the environment, it will affect health and it will affect groundwater. Surely this cannot be the intention.
I hope that you will back up what we have proposed in the Committee on the Environment; this will also make life easier for the industry. It is in the compromise that we have adopted in the Committee on the Environment: we will say no to the mutual obligatory approval of pesticides, but yes to the mutual obligatory approval of data. Moreover, we are talking not only about zones, but also about data throughout Europe. This will make life much easier for the industry. At the same time, we are actually giving countries the right to say no if they have climatic conditions that require them to do so.
Finally, with regard to the reduction targets, I would like to say to Mr Dimas that it is unbelievably positive that we are getting rid of the most dangerous substances – substances that cause cancer, substances that affect child development, etc. Naturally we would like to remove these substances from the market. They are also completely unnecessary. In addition, I think that we should go a step further and also establish a general reduction target for all substances. Of course this should be something that is determined individually in each country, but if we simultaneously link this with the European reduction targets of around 20%, I think we are being ambitious. However, in spite of everything I still believe we are at a stage where it is possible. It will be of great significance for health and the environment in Europe.
With regard to the justification that has been used by the Commission for not introducing these reduction targets, we have introduced a treatment frequency index that takes account of the points that you have otherwise emphasised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples