13 Amendments of Jean-François JALKH related to 2017/2128(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the implementation of the Regulation is not in line with related EU policies, including in the field of pesfor example the EU's agricultural policy is at odds with the targets for reducing use of pesticides, and even more so with its key priority of protecting pollinators, the first victims of neonicotinoid insecticides;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there are concerns associated with the evaluation approach, has established by lawrevealed very serious problems, and there are concerns associated with it, in particular as regards who should produce the evidence for evaluations and the hazard-based approach;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the available evidenceresults and problems noted shows that this piece of EU-level regulation enhanceshas failed in its aims of clarity, transparency and addsing value to national efforts and actions;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the EU is the appropriate level at which regulatory action in the field of pesticides should continue to take place is that of the EU and cooperation among Member States;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned byNotes the fact that the Regulation has not been effectively implemented and that as a result its objectives are not being achieved in practice;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the objectives and instruments of the Regulation and its implementation are not in line with EU policies in the fields of agriculture, food security, climate change, sustainablreducing the use of pesticides and maximum residue levels of pesticides in food and feed;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned by the steadily increasing use and identified cases of misuse of emergency authorisations granted under Article 53; notes that these emergency authorisations lead to the movement of foodstuffs treated with products that have not been authorised in some Member States, and that in this situation the single market plays a part in placing the health of the EU public at risk;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the limited public availability of information on the evaluation and authorisation procedure, as well as the limited access to information; regrets that the level of transparency of the rapporteur Member States is low (acting in the framework of the approval procedure) and that they take little account of the opinions of the other Member States and of independent scientists, that accessibility and user friendliness of information at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stage is problematic, and that transparency at the risk management stage iseems to be lacking and is also considered problematic by stakeholders;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that the Regulation should better reflect the need to promote organic agricultural practices based on integrated pest management, including by stimulating the development of lowzero-risk substances and products;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned that the harmonisation of guidelines in fields likefields such as the effect on endocrine disruptors, ecotoxicology or environmental fate and behaviour is not yet completebeing systematically taken into account in assessments;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure effective implementation of the Regulation as regards their specific roles in the approval and authorisation proceduresto submit to the Council and Parliament an extensive revision and modification of the approval and authorisation procedures and governance system, giving the Member States back their authority and their freedom to cooperate within the system;
Amendment 164 #
14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to acknowledge that health and, environmental and biodiversity protection objectives should take priority over the objective of improving plant protection;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Urges the Commission and the Member States to recognise bans imposed by a Member State, even if the product or substance remains authorised in the EU, thus making it possible for that Member State to prohibit imports onto its territory of foodstuffs that have been in contact with the product or substance in question (for example, dimethoate, which is banned by France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Slovenia but still authorised by the European Union, which means that Turkish imports treated with dimethoate are free to enter the single market);