Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.12.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, in the proposal that is being put to us, the European Commission is asking Parliament and the Council to give our opinion on whether the evaluation period for active substances, which was to be completed by July 2003, should be extended to 2008. There are 834 substances still to be evaluated. The Commission is trying to be realistic, and it does of course have our support, but I think that its position is optimistic, as in the previous period less than one hundred substances were analysed.
I am going to highlight the most important points for the Group of the European People’s Party: first of all, we must retain the possibility of essential uses, as it could be traumatic for some farms and regions if they were to disappear. We should retain and support those amendments in that respect.
Secondly, I cannot share the thinking that the substances are harmful in themselves, as it depends on the concentration, the situation, and how they are used. Our objective should therefore be the smallest risk, which does not mean the smallest quantity.
Thirdly, the preliminary evaluation should under no circumstances be conducted by industries, NGOs, etc., as proposed in an amendment that we do not support, but by those legally established to conduct it. However, the industries, NGOs, etc. should have access to all the information and can contribute studies and tests to the evaluations.
The new integrated farming policy that is emerging in the European Union has led to a considerable decrease in the use of plant protection products, for example in some farms such as extensive arable farms. The public has not appreciated this and is not sufficiently aware of it. The public is increasingly sensitive to the theories of environmentalists, which if they are upheld could lead to undesirable effects on biodiversity due to accumulation as a result of a lack of protection on small farms. This could cause serious problems in terms of lack of supply and dependency and could prevent us from seeking solutions for essential uses and lead us to establish parameters that are beyond the limits determined by analysis or to have plant protection products evaluated by interested NGOs. Interested in what, and why, I wonder? Technical evaluations are done by scientists and discussed between scientists.
I would ask the European Commission, the Commissioner and all of the political groups in Parliament to be responsible when voting and to take into account that, without agriculture, sustainable development is not possible. Perhaps agriculture can exist without sustainable development, but the reverse is not an option."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples