8 Amendments of Jens ROHDE related to 2016/2223(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that local and regional products, as well as community-supported agriculture schemes, enable shorter supply chains, which increase the quality standards of products and support seasonal demands, thus having considerable social, environmental and economic benefits;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the potential for optimisation of use of former foodstuffs and by- products from the food chain, in particular those of animal origin, in feed production and its importance for primary production, but stresses; calls on the Commission to analyze legal barriers to the use of former foodstuffs in feed production and promote research in this area, while at the same time stressing the need for increased traceability;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the benefits of digitalization which allows better access to data and forecasts and developing advance production programmes for farmers, enabling them to better coordinate with the other sectors of the food supply chain and better match supply to demand and minimise wastage;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that increased research and information is needed on enabling access to secondary market opportunities and alternative uses for products which would otherwise be ploughed back into the soil or wasted, e.g. during the Russian embargo; stresses that, in order to keep food waste to an absolute minimum, farmers should be put into a position both technically and economically to use their products in the most resource efficient way;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Expresses concern for a binding food waste hierarchy and calls instead for the establishment of guidelines and the sharing of best practices in order to determine the most resource efficient use of food waste and food loss;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the difficulty in quantifying food wastage and food loss at the primary production stage, and due to the heterogeneous products and respective processes and due to the lack of a clear definition of food waste1a ; calls on the Commission to identify and disseminate to Member States best practice in relation to gathering data on food loss and food waste on farms without placing an additional administrative burden on farmers; and to adopt a common methodology for measurement; further calls on the Commission to swiftly adopt a common terminology and definition of food waste, taking into account the distinction of food wastage and food loss in the primary production sector; _________________ 1aFUSIONS, Estimates of European food waste levels, March 2016.
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Emphasises that educational and awareness-raising initiatives and measures, especially for the household sector, can significantly lower food wastage and increase social initiatives aimed at collecting excess foodstuffs;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that some wastage and loss at farm level is also due to the role played by retailers in relation to retailer standards regarding product specifications, cancelled orders owing to changes in consumer demand, and over-production as a result of requirements to meet seasonal demands.