Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-135"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sustainable use of pesticides2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030326.8.3-135"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-26-Speech-3-1362
lpv:speaker	lp:Hiltrud Breyer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although food scandals are frequent topics of discussion in this House, we are not talking about the everyday scandal that our food contains, unfortunately, far too much in the way of pesticides. A number of speakers have already pointed out how it is a proven fact that pesticides can cause cancer. Studies have shown how, for example, in Norway, the children of agricultural workers are at significantly greater risk of cancer. Other studies of a similar kind demonstrate that there is a clear causative link involved, and so we must make every effort, and the Commission too must send out a clear message by making pesticide reduction programmes mandatory. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden have shown us that pesticide reduction programmes can achieve a reduction in pesticide use of up to 70% within only a few years, without agricultural yields suffering as a result. A study by the American Environmental Agency made clear years ago that 90% of all pesticides are superfluous. Just imagine it – 90% of all pesticides are not needed! At the end of the day, the farmers who think that more is best, even though the very opposite is the case, also come off badly. So I would like, once again, to make it very clear that our group – as we have already shown in relation to Mr Lannoye's report – is committed to reducing the use of pesticides and wants to use a levy to ensure that their prices reflect the ecological facts, for, at the end of the day, it is the consumers who must pay higher prices for groundwater because pesticides continue to be so cheap and are used in such large quantities. What is of the essence is that we want labelling to bring about greater transparency. Our problem is that, where the control of pesticides is concerned, the control authorities in the Member States are groping in the dark, because, to take one example, the German authorities do not know what pesticides are used in Spain or in Greece. The consequence of this is that we need some sort of labelling, a sort of passport, if effective controls are to be possible at all. I do think that this is where we have to make a really big effort, as excessive use of pesticides eventually means that we also have to consider the health costs involved. My great plea to you, Commissioner, is that your strategy should bring about a real reduction in pesticide use and make possible more labelling for the benefit of consumers."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph