11 Amendments of Jean-François JALKH related to 2013/0433(COD)
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has confirmed that surrogate dams used in cloning suffer in particular from placenta dysfunctions contributing to increased levels of miscarriages21. Surrogate dams suffer in particular from placenta dysfunctions contributing to increased levels of miscarriages21. This contributes, amongst other things, to the low efficiency of the technique, 6 to 15 % for bovine and 6 % for porcine species, and the need to implant embryo clones into several dams to obtain one clone. In addition, clone abnormalities and unusually large offspring result in difficult births and neonatal deaths. What is more, surrogate dams have to undergo extensive hormonal treatments which undermine their general well-being and involve the use of drugs which pose a threat to animal and human health and to the environment when excreted. __________________ 21 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/c loning.htm.
Amendment 76 #
Recital 4
(4) Currently animals of bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine and equine species are likely to be cloned for farming purposes. The scope of this Directive should therefore be limited to the use ofCloning thus primarily involves mammals, even though the latter are acknowledged as being particularly sensitive. The provisions of this Directive should therefore be extended to cover all mammals. Given the cost of a clone, it is clear that cloned animals are not themselves intended for cloning for farming purposes of those five specisumption, but rather for use for breeding purposes. In terms of volume, the impact on food production will stem primarily from clone descendants, rather than from clones themselves.
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Even using the latest scientific methods, it is impossible to determine a posteriori whether an animal is a clone or a descendant of a clone, whether a carcass is that of a clone or a descendant of a clone or whether a piece of meat comes from a clone or a descendant of a clone. The only way of guaranteeing traceability, and thus provision of the information which consumers need in order to make a choice in full knowledge of the facts, is to establish a traceability system from the time sperm is taken, in the case of descendants, or cells are taken, in the case of the clone itself. Nevertheless, the experts heard agree that traceability remains a very complex matter and may not even be economically viable.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and notably the freedom to conduct a business and the freedom of the sciences. This Directive has to be implemented in accordance with these rights and principle and, above all, consumers’ freedom of choice and food safety. This Directive has to be implemented in accordance with these rights and principles and with Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty. These provisions accord the same importance to animal welfare as to the other fundamental principles referred to in that title of the Treaty, i.e. the promotion of equality between men and women, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the protection of human health, the combating of discrimination, the promotion of sustainable development and the protection of consumers and personal data. What is more, paragraph 17 of Parliament’s resolution of 4 July 2012 on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012–2015 states it should be obligatory to inform consumers whether an imported product, or a product containing an imported product, is made from animals that were kept under conditions different from those required by European animal welfare regulations.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the cloning of animalmammals and animals kept and reproduced for farming purposes in the Union;
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the cloning of animals in the Union and the use of such animals for breeding purposes;
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the placing on the market of embryo clones and animal clonecloned mammals and animals kept and reproduced for farming purposes and of food and non-food products made from cloned animals and their descendants.
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Imports of live animals, carcasses, meat and pre-prepared meat-based dishes from third countries where animal cloning for farming purposes is practised shall be banned if the products concerned are not clearly identified, and are identifiable by consumers, as stemming from the use of cloning technology, either directly or by way of filiation.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Imports from third countries of mammals born to surrogate dams shall be banned.