Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-04-11-Speech-1-095-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2016-04-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Objection pursuant to Rule 106: renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20160411.17.1-095-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2016-04-11-Speech-1-096-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Julie Girling2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, my Group will robustly rebut this resolution: we will not be voting for it. I could give you a long speech on the use of glyphosate and how important it is to agriculture. I do not have time for that, so let me just concentrate on what I see as the failures in the resolution. The resolution states, as part of its justification, that residues of glyphosate have been found in soil and water; well, yes, they have. But, as the German Federal Risk Institute tells us, they have been found in quantities at less than 1% of the daily acceptable rate. It also states that residues have been found in food. Again, this is not about hazard, this is about risk, and they are at levels way below those which are acceptable to human health. So why does this form such an upfront part of this resolution when it is frankly irrelevant? It also says, in Recital J, that the current proposal has no restrictions on use. That is not the case. The draft implementing regulation clearly states that regulatory measures to identify co-formulants must be developed. It is already there in the draft regulation. So before we even think about the use of glyphosate and its value to us, we really ought to get our facts right. And where we talk about the precautionary principle, once again: the precautionary principle as enshrined in EU law is to take care of cases where there is not any scientific advice. There is a plethora of scientific advice here. That is one of the problems: that we have to choose between our own European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) advice and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and I see no reason to move away from EFSA."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; FEMM (2014-07-09--2017-01-18)3 substitute; AGRI (2014-07-01--2017-01-18)3 member; ENVI (2014-07-01--2017-01-18)3 member; Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector (2016-02-01--2017-04-04)3 member; PECH (2014-07-01--2018-02-27)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Julie Girling,"1 "on behalf of the ECR Group"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph