Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-434-497"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.27.2-434-497"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Abstention. The Committee on the Environment was also useful as we took up many aspects they had voted through in their opinion but the Committee on Agriculture had rejected in its vote. The Committee on Agriculture had also stripped many references and after the Committee on Agriculture vote, there were many aspects not included in the report with sufficient rigour, such as: an objective critique of pesticide toxicity, in particular, the banning of systemic neurotoxins (such as neonicotinoids and phenylpyrazoles and pyrethrinoids) on the basis of a lack of a proper risk assessment, in line with the precautionary principle; the implications to the beekeeping sector of GMO contamination of honey and beekeeping products, as well as consequent costs of testing for contaminants and loss of income for beekeepers; the interaction of agriculture and beekeeping, a critique of monocultures, and the idea that wide-scale changes are needed in agriculture, including crop rotation to reduce (the need for) pesticide use, in order to reverse the sharp decline of pollinator populations. We need sustainable agriculture everywhere, and buffer strips and wildflower/melliferous beds are not enough on their own."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples