Activities of José BOVÉ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, furthermore, that in its opinion adopted on 13 July 2011 as part of the consent procedure in Parliament relating to the agreement, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development recommended that consent should not be given, in view of the fact that: 'High Community standards in environmental protection, working conditions, trade union protection, anti-dumping rules and food safety are not reciprocated in Moroccan products imported into the EU';

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that most of the concerns expressed in that opinion, which was adopted in 2011, are, from the point of view of the European horticulture industry, still relevant today, in what is a difficult and volatile period for the industry, in particular as a result of the ongoing Russian embargo;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, which concluded that the EU-Moroccan agreement on agricultural products did not apply to the territory of Western Sahara;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Deplores the fact that the Commission has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016; notes, therefore, that this agreement will not be able to provide a stable and indisputable framework for the economic players concerned, on both sides of the Mediterranean;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the legal uncertainty that has arisen since the Court of Justice judgment of 21 December 2016; is concerned that the Commission has been unable to provide reliable data on preferential imports of products from Western Sahara that may have been carried out since that date, in spite of the judgment in question; wonders what the cost has been to the EU budget of any preferences granted during the period concerned without a valid legal basis; in the absence of sufficient comparative information, is doubtful whether the Commission is able to assess the impact of the proposed new agreement properly;deleted

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Regrets the legal uncertainty that has arisen since the Court of Justice judgment of 21 December 2016;~~ is concerned that the Commission has been unable to provide reliable and detailed data on preferential imports of products from Western Sahara that may have been carried out before and since that date, in spite of the judgment in question; wonders what the cost has been to the EU budget of any preferences granted during the period concerned without a valid legal basis; requests the Commission to provide a detailed estimate of this cost and, in the absence of sufficient comparative information, is doubtful whether the Commission is able to assess the impact of the proposed new agreement properly;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Nevertheless welcomes the clarification that the new agreement provides, and hopes that it will be able henceforth to provide a clear, stable framework for the economic operators concerned, on both sides of the Mediterranean;deleted

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is doubtful whether the distinction drawn in the new agreement between products from the Sahara and those from Morocco is ~~relevant~~legal from a customs and trade perspective, setting the obvious political aspects aside; notes, in particular, that in the new agreement there is no allocation of the tariff rate quotas laid down in the initial agreement, and that, in terms of access to the preferences granted by the EU, it will not therefore make any difference whatsoever whether or not products are of Sahrawi origin;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Rejects the argument of the legality of the certification of products of Western Sahara by the Moroccan health authorities with regard to the decision of the Court of Justice declaring the two territories separate and distinct;

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that Article 7 of Protocol 1 to the 2012 Agreement contains a safeguard clause making it possible for appropriate steps to be taken where imports of large quantities of agricultural products classed as sensitive under the agreement cause serious market distortion and/or serious harm to the industry concerned; hopes that preferential imports into the EU of sensitive agricultural products from Morocco and Western Sahara will continue to be subject to appropriate monitoring by the Commission, and that the Commission will still be ready to activate the aforementioned clause where an established need arises;deleted

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Points out that the EU and Morocco have negotiated, as set out in the initial agreement concluded in 2012, an ambitious and comprehensive agreement on protecting the geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products that provides for the protection by Morocco of the full list of the EU’s geographical indications; points out, furthermore, that the procedure for concluding the agreement, which began in 2015, was suspended following the Court’s judgment of 21 December 2016; ~~calls for that procedure to be resumed and finalised as soon as possible in conjunction with the conclusion of the agreement considered in this opinion.~~

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0256M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls therefore on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to propose that the European Parliament decline its consent.

2018/10/12
Committee: AGRI

2018/0216(COD)

Maria HEUBUCH, Martin HÄUSLING, José BOVÉ, Thomas WAITZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 a (new)

Article 58a THE LEGUMINOUS CROPS SECTOR Objectives of the leguminous crops sector: Notwithstanding respect of articles 5 and 6 on overall objectives, Member States shall pursue the following objectives in the leguminous crops sector: (a) The scheme shall increase sustainable legume production and consumption across the EU, to increase self-sufficiency of food and feed according to the targets set in Annex I. (b) Arable leguminous crops supported with this payment shall be part of a crop rotation of at least 4 years, or a mix of species in temporary grassland on arable land. This shall be compatible with schemes for the climate and environment (“eco-schemes”) in Article 28, under which rotations of 4 years and more can be rewarded. The scheme may also reward under-cropping or intercropping e.g. by subterranean clover which is not otherwise rewarded under other measures. (c) Pasture based grazing of high species diversity pasture or mowing of high species diversity meadow for fodder on genuinely permanent pasture that contains leguminous species in the sward may also be subsidised, on the condition that re-ploughing and re-seeding (“refreshing”) does not occur. (d) Monocultural or continuous cropping of leguminous crops shall not be supported by these payments. (e) Decreasing dependency on concentrated feed mix containing soya, especially imported soya originating from land that has recently been deforested or converted, in line with the SDG 15, the EU pledge on zero deforestation and existing private company commitments on zero deforestation. (f) Closing nutrient cycling loops and tightening them to local and regional river basin scales in line with the Water Framework Directive. (g) Boosting local and regional markets in food and animal feed and locally adapted low input seed varieties. Measures financed under this sector shall be coherent with EU climatic and environmental commitments and legislation, and not cause direct or indirect land use change, having a genuinely positive impact on global greenhouse gas emissions according to GLOBIOM.

2018/12/10
Committee: AGRI

2018/0216(COD)

Martin HÄUSLING, Maria HEUBUCH, José BOVÉ, Thomas WAITZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 b (new)

Article 58b THE LEGUMINOUS CROP SECTOR Types of interventions: As regards the objectives referred to in Article 58a Member States choose in to their CAP Strategic Plans one or more of the following types of interventions: (a) investments in tangible and non- tangible assets; research and experimental production, as well as other actions, including actions for: (i) soil conservation, including the genuine and proven enhancement of soil carbon without systemic reliance on pesticides; (ii) increasing efficiency of water use and management, including water saving; (iii) promoting the use of varieties and management practices adapted to changing climate conditions; (iv) improving management practices to increase pest resilience of crops to pests and decreasing susceptibility to pests; (v) reduction of pesticide use and dependency; (vi) creating and maintaining agricultural habitats favourable to biodiversity, without use of pesticides; (b) advisory services and technical assistance, in particular regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation, also on selection by the farmer of the most appropriate crop rotation; (c) training including coaching and exchange of best practices; (d) organic production and techniques; (e) actions to increase the sustainability and efficiency of transport and of storage of products;

2018/12/10
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas sheep- and goat-farming play an important role in ensuring environmental sustainability, being as they are present in 70% of geographically disadvantaged areas and contribute to preserving biodiversity (including through the preservation of local breeds) and combating soil erosion, the build-up of unwanted biomass, avalanches and forest and brush fires;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas sheep- and goat-farming play an important role in ensuring environmental sustainability, being as they are present in 70% of geographically disadvantaged areas and contribute to preserving biodiversity and combating soil erosion, the build-up of unwanted biomass, levee damages, avalanches and forest fires;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas with an optimal stocking density these sectors can contribute to the conservation of areas of high ecological value or high nature value (HNV) pastureland and rough grazing, wooded pasture and other silvo-pastoral systems, such as dehesa/montado pastureland, as well as less fertile land;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas such farms are often non- intensive and practise pastoralism making use of summer pastures, raising animals outside during the grazing and transhumance season;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas sheep and goat production offer a significant potential for development and employment in many fragile rural and peri-urban areas, notably as regards sheep- and goatmeat and high quality dairy products able to be brought to market through short and local supply chains;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

Gb. whereas the restructuring of the slaughter industry, compliance with health regulations and the reduction in animals slaughtered associated with the reduction in farming have in many regions led to the disappearance of the economic instruments necessary for adding value and for the sustanability of local supply chains;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas, in recent years, New Zealand has increased exports of fresh or chilled meat, reducing its traditional exports of frozen meat, thus having a greater impact on the EU fresh-meat market and resulting in a lowering of prices paid to European producers;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas the sheep and goat sectors account for 3% of European milk and 9% of European cheese production and whereas together they employ 1.5 million people in the European Union;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

M. whereas the protection afforded to certain animal species under the Habitats Directive has in all regions led to increased attacks on herds of sheep and goats by wolves, bears and lynxes, thus worsening the precarious situation in which some farms find themselves;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)

Oa. whereas there is a growing market in many Member States of the European Union for locally produced and marketed agricultural products, meeting consumer demand for transparency and quality;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O b (new)

Ob. whereas the restructuring of the slaughter industry has led to the disappearance of many instruments necessary for ensuring the sustainability of local supply chains;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Commends the Commission on its intention to set up a dedicated budget line for those products in the next promotion campaigns co-financed by the Union, and advocates the need to include goat and ewe’s milk as well as wool among the beneficiary products;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Supports maintaining or, where possible, increasing coupled aid for pasture-based and silvo-pastoral sheep- and goat-farming in the forthcoming reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with a view to arresting the drain of farmers from these sectors in the EU, in view of the high rate of dependence of sheep- and goat-farmers on direct payments;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the move begun in the last CAP reform and including the agreement reached in negotiations for the Omnibus regulation ~~recognising~~that, in the definition of permanent pasture and grassland, the specific nature of Mediterranean grasslands~~, such as dehesa pasturelands~~ is recognised, with a view to finding fairer arrangements governing the land eligible for direct payments; a~~dvocates autho~~nd redressing the intrinsi~~ng grazing in areas of ecological interest~~c discrimination against rough grazing and silvo-pastoral systems such as dehesa, especially in upland areas;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Draws attention to the lack of water in many sheep- and goat-farming regions, particularly those in the Mediterranean area, a situation which will only worsen with global warming; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure better management of water resources through adapted facilities, taking into account the distribution of rainfall over the year and sustainability;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes however that these improvements are still optional for Member States;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for the criterion of 50% grass in wooded areas necessary to trigger a direct payment per hectare for farmers to be abandoned in the case of goat and sheep farmers;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Notes that elsewhere in the Direct payment regulation, Member States are still left free to apply discriminatory reduction coefficients on such land, meaning payments for upland, high biodiversity grazing can be a fraction of lowland, minimal biodiversity grazing;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses the importance of this type of grazing land for fire prevention;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and Member States to consider measures to improve transparency in the market, as well as the possibility of harmonising arrangements on carcasses that reflect the real cost of the loss, and the establishment of a European observatory monitoring the prices and production costs of sheep- and goatmeat;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to support artisanal cheese-makers in the sheep and goat sectors on the basis of the European Guide to good hygiene practices in the production of artisanal cheese and dairy products, drawn up by the Commission;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Urges the Commission ~~to exercise caution in negotiating the new~~not to make any commitments in free-trade agreements with New Zealand, pending its analysis of the impact of Brexit on the EU sheep- farming sector; takes the view that this new agreement should split New Zealand’s quota for lamb meat exports into the EU so as to separate fresh or chilled and frozen meat;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Regrets that the more than 1 400 European agricultural products protected by a geographical indication do not automatically benefit from equivalent protection in third-country markets covered by international trade agreements negotiated by the EU;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls for consideration to be given to the precarious situation of sheep and goat farmers when entering into further trade agreements with third countries, by including their products among sensitive sectors~~, and~~ or excluding them from the negotiations so as to exclude any provisions that might compromise the European model of production in any way, and to the local or regional economy;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider ~~rural development~~ measures to protect herds from attack from predators and ~~look into~~ review~~ing~~ the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators ~~in certain grazing areas~~, by adopting protected status for the wolf;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, José BOVÉ, Marc TARABELLA, Momchil NEKOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider rural development measures to protect herds from attack from predators, to compensate farmers for losses caused by predator attacks and to look into reviewing the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators in certain grazing areas;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider rural development measures to protect herds from attack from predators and look into reviewing the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators by adapting the protected status of the wolf in certain grazing areas;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Urges the Member States to implement the recommendations of the Berne Convention to prevent the spread of wolf-dog hybrids, which threaten the conservation of the species Canis lupus and are very largely responsible for attacks on sheep and goat herds;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. underlines the need for an objective, science-based approach that considers animal behaviour, predator- prey relations, accurate quantification of predation risk by species listed in the Habitats Directive, hybridisation, range dynamics and other ecological issues in any suggestions considered;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop local networks, which act as a lever for increasing incomes by facilitating the establishment of local and mobile slaughterhouses that are essential to the structuring of these sectors;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Calls on the Commission to immediately ban the import of hormones taken in third countries from pregnant mares and used in the Union for breeding sheep and goats;

2017/11/28
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

– having regard to the Via Campesina Declaration on Food Sovereignty presented at the FAO Summit in Rome in November 1996;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas proteins are at the core of the challenges of food safety and sovereignty, environmental protection and global warming; whereas they are essential to life and are present in all foods consumed by both humans and animals;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the development of agriculture in the past 50 years has given rise to the large-scale long-distance transport of raw materials for the production of vegetable and meat proteins which is now causing problems for the environment ~~and the climate~~, the climate and human and animal health, particularly through the use of extremely hazardous pesticides such as phosphine in bulk carriers;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas there is a need today for a strategic, effective and ambitious protein supply plan to be implemented for the sustainable development of European agriculture and the food security of 500 million Europeans; whereas such a plan requires the mobilisation of several EU policies, first and foremost the CAP;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas the 1992 Blair House Agreement on proteins is now obsolete ~~and~~, no longer reflects present-day realities and should be called into question;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes the view that this plan must maximise thsustainable biomass production ~~of all usable~~in relevant agricultural areas by developing permanent plant cover, some of which can be devoted to protein supply;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls for the mandatory introduction of crop rotation involving one leguminous crop on all arable land where climatic and agronomic conditions permit that;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recommends ~~greater use of precision agriculture in order to adjus~~that plant nitrogen supplements and animal feed rations be adjusted as accurately as possible, by applying agronomic techniques, so as to limit wastage and some types of pollution;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/2116(INI)

Nicola CAPUTO, Karin KADENBACH, José BOVÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Insists that strict and transparent checks be carried out at European ports, when holds on bulk carriers are opened, so as to prevent dockers and cargo handlers from being exposed to fumes from pesticides used during shipping, in particular from phosphine, which is the most commonly used pesticide;

2017/11/16
Committee: AGRI

2017/0004(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) Directive 2004/37/EC should be amended to strengthen health surveillance. Due to the lack of consistent data on substance exposure, it is necessary to protect exposed workers and professional users or workers and professional users who are at risk of exposure by enforcing mandatory health surveillance, rather than surveying only when it is deemed to be necessary. Due to the gaps in data collection it is not clear when health surveillance is to be deemed to be necessary. It would therefore be prudent to ensure mandatory life-long health surveillance for all exposed workers and professional users.

2017/06/27
Committee: AGRI

2017/0004(COD)

Nicola CAPUTO, Karin KADENBACH, José BOVÉ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)

(1b) Appropriate and consistent data collection by Member States is necessary to improve and ensure safety and proper care for workers and professional users. The Commission should support best practice exercises on data collection between Member States and propose how data collection can be improved. The Commission should also require Member States to provide it with information for the purposes of its reports on the implementation of Directive 2004/37/EC.

2017/06/27
Committee: AGRI

2017/0004(COD)

Nicola CAPUTO, José BOVÉ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)

(1c) The burden of proof should not be on the victims of the exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxins. Instead, wider rights for workers and professional users to claim compensation should be established. Member States should, as soon as possible, introduce into their national laws, regulations or administrative, provisions concerning scientifically recognised occupational diseases that give rise to compensation, and the right of a worker or a professional user to claim compensation in respect of the occupational diseases based on the Commission Recommendation C(2003) 3297 of 19 September 2003 concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases. Insurance and compensation entities should adopt a harmonised approach to the recognition of and compensation for diseases resulting from exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxins at work.

2017/06/27
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that farmers and farm workers are, by virtue of their profession, exposed to a range of external factors, such as price and market fluctuations or even unpredictable weather, that make employment prospects precarious and insecure; considers that ~~the Commission and the Member States must encourage the use of income-stabilisation and risk- management tools~~remunerative farm gate prices covering production costs are fundamental to secure farmers' incomes in the long run;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes the regular professional exposure of many agri-food sector workers to chemicals, which includes exposure to cocktails of hazardous substances;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Notes the increasing reporting specific illnesses related to the use of synthetic pesticides by farmers and agricultural workers, e.g. non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Parkinson's disease and multiple chemical sensitivity;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Notes that, according to medics and scientists, the repeated and regular use of pesticides may lead to reproductive disorders and carcinogenic effects seen in rural populations;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5 d. Further notes that this cumulative exposure, including to a cocktail of chemical substances, is inadequately taken into account in the current authorisation process and its data requirements;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

5 e. Notes that improving working conditions of farmers and agricultural workers also depends on reducing their exposure to chemical treatments in the workplace; Is concerned that such exposure and measures intended to limit that exposure may be insufficiently recognised and controlled by EU and national authorities;

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)

5 f. Calls the European Commission to report on the implementation of the European law in this field and specifically to assess how effectively measures are implemented by the Member States regarding farmers and agricultural workers' occupational exposure to chemical pesticides.

2016/12/07
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 39, 42 and 101 to 109 thereof,

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas Article 39(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets as one of the objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) that of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that competition policy must attach the same importance to defending the interests of agricultural producers as it does to defending consumers’ interests, ensuring that the conditions for competition are fair so as to foster investment, employment and innovation in agricultural markets; emphasises that, with that aim in view, fixing a floor price which effectively bans below-cost selling by farmers is one of the options which shoud be considered and implemented;

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to broaden its approach in terms of criteria for determining whether an agricultural undertaking, or a number of such undertakings linked by a horizontal agreement, is deemed to be in a ‘dominant position’, taking into consideration the degree of concentration in sectors downstream and on world markets;

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for simplification of the rules on farmers’ organising collectively, so as to strengthen their negotiating capacity, in particular vis-à-vis large-scale retailers, while safeguarding the principles set out in Article 39 TFEU;

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that full and satisfactory implementation of the ‘Milk Package’ is essential in order to strengthen the dairy sector; asks the Commission to propose that the ‘Milk Package’ should continue to apply beyond mid-2020 and to examine whether its rules could be extended to other sectors of agriculture;deleted

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that the implementation of the ‘Milk Package’ demonstrates the ineffectiveness of public intervention when it focuses solely on disincentives to production in a deregulated market; points out that structural overproduction in the milk sector calls for the rapid establishment of binding public rules governing the management of milk production in the single market;

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission and the national competition authorities to address the concerns raised by the cumulative impact – particularly at the upper end of the food supply chain – of, on the one hand, national-level concentration in the distribution sector and, on the other, the development of European- and international-level alliances of major distributors.

2016/10/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5 a (new)

Agriculture and the Agri-food sector

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Emphasizes that Article 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) accords a special status to the agricultural sector with regard to the application of competition law;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, James NICHOLSON, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Recalls that the most recent reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) sought to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain through a series of derogations and exemptions from the provisions of Article 101 TFEU;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, James NICHOLSON, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Believes that the current crisis situation in farming worsens the already weak position of farmers in the food supply chain and calls for fresh initiatives to ensure that competition policy takes better account of the specific nature of agriculture;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)

20d. Finds it regrettable that, despite the publication of guidelines on the application of the specific rules set out in Articles 169, 170 and 171 of the Single CMO regulation1b , the scope of the current derogations remains unclear, difficult to implement and unevenly applied by national competition authorities; __________________ 1bRegulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007.

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, James NICHOLSON, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 e (new)

20e. Calls on the Commission to broaden its approach in terms of criteria for determining whether an agricultural undertaking, or a number of such undertakings linked by a horizontal agreement, is deemed to be in a 'dominant position', taking into consideration the degree of concentration and the constraints resulting from bargaining power from upstream and downstream sectors;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, James NICHOLSON, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 f (new)

20f. Considers that the collective activities of producer organisations and their associations, such as production planning and sales negotiation, are necessary for achieving the aims of the CAP and that they should benefit from a presumption of compatibility with Articles 39 and 101 TFEU;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, James NICHOLSON, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 h (new)

20h. Calls on the Commission and the national competition authorities to address the concerns raised by the cumulative impact – particularly at the upper end of the food supply chain – of, on the one hand, national-level concentration in the retail sector and, on the other, the development of European- level alliances of major distributors;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Paolo DE CASTRO, Bas BELDER, José BOVÉ, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 i (new)

20i. Takes note of the conclusions of the study "Economic impact of modern retail on choice and innovation in the EU food sector" of the Directorate General Competition, including the existence of a negative relationship that may exists between innovation and penetration of products under private labels on the food market; calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament the extent of the on- going discussions to determine whether this negative relationship does reduce innovation and variety of products available to consumers and what would be their long-term consequences for the supply chain and on the situation of farmers;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Encourages the use of ~~pen systems for group~~collective park systems, which are the most suitable system for rabbits ~~because of their highly social behaviour; points out that the use of pen systems improves the welfare of farm rabbits and reduces the incidence~~for fattening because they allow more generous living space, permitting social and locomotive behaviour; points out that the use of collective park systems, which is associated with better farming practices that reduce stress, improves the welfare of farm rabbits and consequently helps to place rabbit farming ofn a~~bnormal behaviour amongst them~~ trajectory towards quality production;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Encourages the use of alternative flooring to slats, in order to provide greater comfort than plastic gratings or solid floors with litter;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines that growing rabbits and does kept in ~~pen~~collective park systems, typically 750 cm²/rabbit for growers and 800 cm²/rabbit for does, benefit from more space for movement, social interaction and play, and that platforms in pen systems allow rabbits to avoid aggressors by getting out of the way, with separate housing for does when they are nursing a litter;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Emphasises that ~~abolishing~~the gradual abandonment of the use of battery cages across the EU would have a positive impact on the protection of public health and would help to reduce the use of antibiotics in rabbit farming;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Invites the Commission to consider ~~pen~~collective park systems as the guiding principle and to promote the gradual abandonment of cage systems when proposing measures for housing requirements for breeding does and for rabbits reared for meat production;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2077(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Encourages the Commission and Member States to support farmers who develop systems that improve the welfare of rabbits as part of the CAP's rural development programmes;

2016/09/20
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Takes note of the proposed EUR 58.9 billion in commitments ~~(-5.7%~~and deplores this -5.7% decrease compared to 2016, (with the impact of the reprogramming neutralised), and EUR 55.2 billion in payments (+0.2%) under the Draft Budget (DB) 2017 for Heading 2;

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Condemns year-on-year decreases in rural development commitment and spending.

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Urges Member States to consider, in the opportunity afforded by the CAP's mid-term review, reversing decisions made at the beginning of the programing period that transferred allocations from pillar two to pillar one, so as to strengthen their rural development; highlights the new opportunities available for rapid approval of changed rural development measures.

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the proposed cuts for intervention in the agricultural markets, especially for milk and milk products compared to 2016; sees a continued financial effort being necessary to combat the crisis in the milk market, in particular Union funding for mandatory supply management to reduce milk volume during periods of critically low milk prices; asks the Commission to extend emergency measures related to sales difficulties; is concerned that further markets intervention will be necessary;

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Insists on the need to provide funds to compensate for the economic losses suffered by farmers due to market crises or other effects; reiterates the need to use the available margins under Heading 2 to this effect in particular a supply management fund;

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Welcomes the slight increase in funds allocated to support beekeeping, as Parliament has consistently viewed beekeeping as a priority for the future of agriculture and for the conservation of biodiversity. in the face of indirect and non-target effects of pesticide use, decreased food sources from both crops and wild flowers and climate change;

2016/07/26
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas global agriculture has to meet the major challenge of world population growth through promoting food sovereignty and strengthening the position of smallholders in developing countries as well as the EU while avoiding the destruction of local markets through subsidised dumping of EU surpluses;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas climate change affects agricultural output levels, and manifestations of climate change such as drought and floods, exacerbated by poor environmental management of soils and ecosystems, contribute to production and price volatility;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

G a. whereas price volatility, particularly during recent price spikes, can be partly explained by the significant growth in commodities speculation by investment funds with a short-term trading focus, with volumes of exchange- traded derivatives on some commodities markets now 20-30 times larger than the physical production of the commodities concerned, as demand for higher yield short-term investments outstrips demand from actual end users and producers of the commodity;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

~~J. whereas greater market transparency may limit price volatility;~~deleted

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

~~M. whereas the CAP as reformed in 2013 includes tools for risk management within the framework of rural development policy;~~deleted

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)

M a. whereas in the United States 35- 45% of government subsidies for crop insurance programmes go not to the farmer but to private insurance companies;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that volatility ~~must be accepted as a given and that~~is the consequence of the mistaken political decision to deregulate agricultural markets, and a "producerist" ethos which ignores the need to balance supply and demand; new forms of public regulation of the markets must be introduced in order to lessen the occurrence of volatility and guarantee fair prices for farmers, and those operators who are most exposed must be supported in order to lessen ~~its~~the negative effects of volatility;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the Union’'s competitors on the world market make considerable sums of public money available for protecting their farmers and dairy companies from the effects of world price volatility; however, doubts whether such measures are Green Box compatible and in line with World Trade Organisation commitments to phase out market-related subsidies;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that decoupled direct aids ~~under the current CAP are unsuited to situations of price volatility and that they~~, imposed by WTO rules since 1994 and implemented under the current CAP provide undifferentiated annual aid amounts without involving farmers in an anticipatory approach to ~~coping with price change~~improving the environmental, economic and social sustainability of their holdings;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that farmers’' average annual incomes in the EU have remained unchanged, or in some cases have declined, over the past 10 years, compared to continuously increasing production costs and an increase in farm debt; expresses concern that 2.4 million farms in the EU disappeared between 2005 and 2010, most of which are small farmers, and the resulting disappearance of a large number of jobs in rural areas;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Considers that farmers, following the dismantling of market regulation rules, must be permitted to come together in bodies that carry as much clout as those of the other stakeholders with whom they negotiate;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to create European and national regulatory frameworks to ban unfair trading practices, such as late payments and listing fees, which are imposed by retailers and processors on producers through an imbalance in bargaining power, and affect the ability of farmers to make fair returns;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. calls for the amendment of European competition rules to allow farmers to come together in producer organisations and co-operatives to be strong enough to achieve the bargaining power needed against processors and retailers to obtain fair prices;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14 b. Calls for the banning of market prices which are under the production costs of the farmers;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recommends that the tools for financial risk management, particularly the various types of insurance and ~~mutual funds, be developed~~income stabilisation tools, must not be promoted nor funded from the Common Agricultural Policy;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Notes that the EU and CAP budgets are limited, are unlikely to be increased in future, and therefore agricultural and rural development investment needs to be carefully targeted at the most important programmes;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 g (new)

16 g. Believes that scarce funds should be capped at individual farm level, and the proceeds should be redistributed among farmers and Member States and focused on improving the ecological and economic resilience and sustainability of farms, through diversification of income streams, promotion of employment and through climate-proofing agriculture through soil fertility, water management and conservation measures; therefore opposes using limited public resources on subsidising premiums for private insurance companies;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Considers that price volatility adversely affects the income of farmers who have made investments, and that CAP tools should be put in place to prevent the impetus for investment being lost;~~deleted

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that the CAP must ~~seek to~~be designed to lessen the incidence of volatility, and put farmers at the heart of strategies for coping with volatility, ~~supporting the decisions they take in an anticipatory approach to managing and cover~~through intervention in the markets and through publicly regulated and funded systems of collective supply management to prevent imbalances of supply and demand ing the ~~associated risks~~EU;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough analysis of how ~~this can be achieved and of the resources that should be earmarked for it when the CAP is re~~farmers can make use of insurance tools through private funding; rejects the notion that the Common Agricultural Policy should be transformed into a US- style risk insurance based system, on the following grounds: the lack of efficiency in spending public money (35-45% of government funds go to private insurance companies), the tremendous administrative burden and the lack of farm-level data needed to calculate accurate compensation, the incompatibility with EU budget rules, and the lack of correlation of support with sectors which are most in newed, such as dairy;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that, as farmers cannot control the factors that determine their turnover and gross margins, they should be encouraged to develop tools for coping with market volatility, especially mutual funds, such tools being better suited to that purpose than direct payments;deleted

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21 a. Believes that the best tool to stabilise markets and reduce price volatility is to ensure a better balance between supply and demand and a fair allocation of product quantities among Member States and between farmers;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21 a. Calls on the Commission to encourage new forms of management of production levels to better balance supply and demand within Europe, particularly for products like milk which are quickly perishable, with a stronger focus on adding value to primary products, developing quality products in local markets, short supply chains and effectively protecting Geographic Indicators outside the EU;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Notes, however, that price transparency in itself will do nothing to improve the resilience of farmers against price volatility, or resolve structural faults in market organisation such as the imbalances between supply and demand;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/2034(INI)

Maria HEUBUCH, Michèle RIVASI, José BOVÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25 a. Calls for effective regulation of commodities markets to ensure they are focused on the genuine hedging needs of agricultural businesses, and that supervisory bodies can intervene to prevent excessive speculation which may impact on food prices;

2016/06/21
Committee: AGRI

2016/0005(NLE)

The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament decline to give its consent to the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA States, of the other part.

2016/06/23
Committee: DEVE

2015/2353(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, José BOVÉ, Eric ANDRIEU, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Paolo DE CASTRO, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same level; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation; calls on the Commission, in a context of migration crisis, to explore the possibility to strengthen synergies between the withdrawal of agricultural products from the market and the distribution of food aid to the most deprived citizens and to refugees through the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) ;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2227(INI)

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Marc TARABELLA, José BOVÉ, Eric ANDRIEU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a.. Is also concerned at the EU's continued dependence on imported protein feed such as soya and calls for an ambitious protein crop development policy in the European Union;

2016/01/21
Committee: AGRI

2015/2128(INI)

Benedek JÁVOR, José BOVÉ, Bart STAES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Welcomes the successful outcomes of numerous joint customs operations (JCOs) involving the cooperation of OLAF and Member States with various third-country services, which have resulted in the seizure of, inter alia, 1.2 million counterfeit goods, including perfumes, car spare parts, electronic devices and 130 million cigarettes; underlines the fact that the smuggling of heavily taxed goods causes significant losses of revenue to the budgets of the EU and the Member States, and that direct losses in customs revenue as a result of cigarette smuggling alone are estimated at more than EUR 10 billion a year;

2015/12/07
Committee: CONT

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers the opening of new markets to be of the utmost importance in the context of the current farming crisis and accordingly favours the balanced negotiation of bilateral or multilateral agreements with third countries, provided that the most sensitive sectors are adequately protectRejects the Commission's strategy of seeking solutions to the chronic crisis of oversupply in many important European agricultural sectors such as dairy and pork through moving surpluses overseas, particularly in developing countries, to escape the consequences of artificially induced low prices in Europe; notes that explosive demand in emerging markets such in China which was supposed to permanently absorb ever- expanding surpluses has in many cases not materialised;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to encourage new forms of management of production levels to better balance supply and demand within Europe, with a stronger focus on developing quality products in local markets and short supply chains;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Notes that the Commission's strategy of opening up trade with developed countries with lower environmental, economic, social and sanitary and phytosanitary standards than Europe will inevitably lead to the exposure of sensitive sectors like beef to higher tariff rate quotas, with serious consequences for small farmers in vulnerable regions in Europe;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Commission to assess the impact on Europe of fresh trade concessions to third countries and forward its findings to the European Parliament before accepting or making any commercial offer; urges the Commission, if these impact assessments reveal adverse consequences for sensitive European sectors, to amend or withdraw commercial offers already on the table or in preparation for submission accordingly;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Takes the view that trade agreements should ensure a level playing field between the different trading partners in the agricultural sector, taking into account the higher environmental, food safety and social ~~costs to be met by European farmers, so as to ensure that the latter are able to benefit fully from the opening of new markets~~standards in the EU, reflecting our societal values, so as to ensure that small farmers and those in vulnerable areas do not lose out, and that the EU maintains its powerful marketing brand of high quality production;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the protection of geographical indications should be a sine qua non in trade negotiations with third countries, especially the USA and Canada;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of ~~progress regarding phytosanitary barriers, paying particular attention to the red lines drawn by the European Union that might have implications for the health of consumers.~~upholding the EU's higher phytosanitary, food safety, animal welfare and social standards in trade agreements - trade negotiations must under no circumstances be used to alter or amend democratically decided EU legislation by the back door;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes the poor protection of animal welfare in many of the EU's advanced trading partners, such as the lack of federal legislation protecting farm animals before slaughter in the United States; demands that the Commission include animal welfare as a trade concern in all ongoing and future bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, with all imports of animal products from developed countries required to meet EU laws on animal welfare, and imports from developing countries required to meet equivalent standards;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2105(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Notes that the current trade structures of European agriculture, primarily through a huge trade deficit in animal feed such as soy, has seriously adverse consequences for food security, environmental protection, job security and biodiversity in importing countries such as Brazil, resulting in the destruction of tropical rainforest and the seizure of land from indigenous people and small farmers; calls on the Commission to develop a funded strategy to reduce these trade deficits and develop indigenous sources of animal feed;

2016/05/04
Committee: AGRI

2015/2041(INI)

Benedek JÁVOR, Bart STAES, José BOVÉ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Urges all the relevant EU institutions to implement Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in accordance with the recommendations contained in the guidelines thereto; urges the Commission to publish the assessment on the PMI agreement and agreements with other tobacco companies and an impact assessment on the implementation of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control;

2015/10/01
Committee: ENVI

2015/2041(INI)

Benedek JÁVOR, Bart STAES, José BOVÉ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Is convinced that the PMI agreement should not be negotiated before a public and transparent debate is held following the publication of the assessment of the PMI agreement; calls on the Commission to explore existing alternatives;

2015/10/01
Committee: ENVI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 291(3) thereof,

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Both Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 establish a centralised procedure at Union level whereby the Commission is empowered to adopt implementing decisions granting or refusing application for the authorisation of GMOs and GM food and feed, based on an assessment of the potential risks that they could pose to human or animal health, or the environment. Both Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 a~~lso provides that~~nd Regulation 178/2002 require the Commission to take other legitimate factors ~~may be taken~~ into account, whe~~re appropriate~~n submitting a draft decision.

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) The use of genetic engineering in plants and in food and feed is a subject which divides opinion in the Member States and this is reflected in the decision-making process leading to the authorisation of GMOs ~~and GM food and feed. Since the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, t~~for cultivation and of GM food and feed. The results of the voting in the committees or in Council show that there has never been a qualified majority either in favour of or against the authorisation of those products. ~~Therefore~~So far, authorisations have been adopted by the Commission at the end of the procedure, ~~in accordance with applicable legislation,~~ without the support of the Member States’ committee opinion. However, as the area is very sensitive for European citizens, the Commission needs a clear indication on how to act in such cases. Regulation 182/2011 therefore needs to be changed accordingly.

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Once a GMO or a GM food and feed is authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the free circulation of that product within their territory, except in accordance with strict conditions which are laid down by Union law –and require to provide evidence of a severe risk to health or to the environment. Some Member States have had recourse to the safeguard clauses and the emergency measures provided for respectively in Articles 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Other Member States have made use of the notification procedure provided for in Article 114(5) and (6) of TFUE which also is required to be based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment. Other Member States have adopted unilateral prohibitions. Some of these measures have been challenged before national jurisdictions or the Court of Justice.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) That situation was changed recently as regards GMOs for cultivation due to the adoption, on 13 March 2015, of Directive (EU) 2015/41214 which amended Directive 2001/18/EC to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. The new provisions are primarily aimed at enabling Member States to decide whether or not they wish to permit the cultivation of GMO crops on their territory, without affecting the risk assessment provided in the system of Union authorisations of GMOs. They were intended to provide more predictability to operators and limit the recourse by the Member States to the safeguard clauses provided for in Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It was also expected that those amendments would have a positive impact on the decision-making process for the authorisation of GMOs for cultivation. __________________ 14Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory (OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 1).deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The reasons for the amendments made to Directive 2001/18/EC, by Directive (EU) 2015/412 as regards GMOs for cultivation are also relevant for other GMOs and GM food and feed covered by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Indeed, the results of the vote on the implementing decision for the authorisation of products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 which are not intended for cultivation in the relevant committee, or in the Council, is always ‘no opinion’ (no qualified majority either in favour of or against the authorisation) and there are also Member States in which the use of these products is prohibited. Taking those matters into account, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in order to provide the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of GMOs and GM food and feed in all or part of their territory, on the basis of compelling grounds compatible with Union law - not related to risks to human and animal health and to the environment, as those are already assessed at Union level, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. This possibility should not apply to GMOs for cultivation which are already covered by the amendments made to Directive 2001/18/EC, by Directive (EU) 2015/412.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) Member States should therefore be allowed to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the use in all or part of their territory of a GMO or a GM food and feed, or group of GMOs or of GM food and feed, once authorised, provided that such measures are reasoned, based on compelling grounds in accordance with Union law, and are in line with the principles of proportionality and non- discrimination between national and non- national products, and Article 34, Article 36 and Article 216(2) of TFEU.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

~~(9) The restrictions or prohibitions adopted pursuant to this Regulation should refer to the use and not to the free circulation and imports of genetically modified food and feed.~~deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The level of protection of human and animal health and of the environment achieved through the authorisation procedure provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 requires a uniform scientific assessment throughout the Union and this Regulation should not alter that situation. Therefore to avoid any interference with the competences which are granted to the risk assessors and risk managers under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Member States should not be authorised to use grounds which are related to risks to health and to the environment which should be dealt with in accordance with the procedure already established in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and in particular its Articles 10, 22 and 34.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Member States’ measures adopted pursuant to this Regulation should be subject to a procedure of scrutiny and information at Union level with a view to the functioning of the internal market. In light of the level of scrutiny and information provided in this Regulation, it is not necessary to provide, in addition, for the application of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council15 . The amendments being made to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by this Regulation provide that Member States may restrict or prohibit the use of GMOs or GM food and feed in all or part of their territory for the whole duration of the authorisation, provided that an established standstill period, during which the Commission and the other Member States are given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures, has elapsed. The Member State concerned should therefore communicate a draft of those measures to the Commission at least 3 months prior to their adoption, in order to give the opportunity to the Commission and the other Member States to comment, and should refrain from adopting and implementing those measures during that period. On the expiry of the established ‘standstill’ period, the Member State should be able to adopt the measures as originally proposed or amended to take into account the Commission’s or the Member States’ comments. Member States should be allowed to notify to the Commission measures pursuant to this Regulation before that the product concerned by the measures is authorised so that the restriction or the prohibition starts its effects as from the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation. __________________ 15Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37).deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) In the case where a product was lawfully used before a Member State adopts measures pursuant to this Regulation, sufficient time should be given to operators to allow the phasing out of the product from the market.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) Measures adopted pursuant to this Regulation, which restrict or prohibit the use of GMOs or GM food and feed should not affect the use in other Member States of these products as well as of products derived from their consumption. In addition, this Regulation and the national measures adopted pursuant to it should be without prejudice to Union law requirements concerning unintended and adventitious presence of GM material in other products and should not affect the placing on the market and use of products complying with these requirements.deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

~~(14) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 should be amended accordingly,~~deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1

~~[...]~~deleted

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2015/0093(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

~~In Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 the following Article is inserted:~~ Regulation 182/2011 is hereby amended as follows: (1) The following recital 11a is inserted: (11a) The area of GMO authorisations, whether it is via Directive 2001/18 or via Regulation 1829/2003, is the only field where regularly neither the responsible committee, nor the Council comes to an opinion (no qualified majority either in favour or against the authorisation). As the area is very sensitive for European citizens, the Commission needs a clear indication on how to act in such cases. (2) Recital 14 is changed as follows: (14) When considering the adoption of other draft implementing acts concerning particularly sensitive sectors, notably taxation, consumer health, food safety and protection of the environment, the Commission, in order to find a balanced solution, will, as far as possible, act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge within the appeal committee against the appropriateness of an implementing act. With regard to the sensitive field of GMO authorisations, no draft implementing act authorising a GMO should be adopted if a simple majority of the component members of the committee opposes it. (3) In Article 6, the following paragraph 3a is inserted: (3a) ‘Where no opinion is delivered in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, and where the draft implementing act concerns an application for authorisation of a GMO, in accordance with Directive 2001/18 or Regulation 1829/2003, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act.’ (4) In Article 11, the following second subparagraph is inserted: ‘Where the draft implementing act concerns an application for authorisation of a GMO, in accordance with Directive 2001/18 or Regulation 1829/2003, and where the European Parliament has spoken out against the authorisation, e.g. by means of a resolution, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act.’

2015/07/22
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36

(36) 'genetically modified organism' means a genetically modified organism as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council43 ~~which is not~~and includes those obtained through the new techniques of genetic modification~~s listed in Annex I.B to that Directive~~, hereinafter referred to as ‘GMO'; __________________ 43 Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1).

2015/06/24
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs including those obtained through the new techniques of genetic modification shall not be used in food or feed or as food, feed, processing aids, plant protection products, fertilisers, soil conditioners, plant reproductive material , micro-organisms and animals in organic production.

2015/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.3.5 a (new)

1.3.5a. For the renewal of apiaries, 20% per year of the queen bees and swarms may be replaced by non-organic queen bees and swarms in the organic production unit, provided that the queen bees and swarms are placed in hives with combs or comb foundations coming from organic production units. In any case, one swarm or queen bee can be replaced per year.

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.2 a (new)

2.2a. Production of rabbits (i) Stocking density shall respect the following conditions: Indoors: - Breeding does and their litter : 0.4 m² - Males and pregnant does: 0.3 m² - Fattening rabbits: 0.15 m² Outdoors (mobile enclosures) : - Breeding does and their litter: 2.4 m² - Males and pregnant does: 2 m² - Fattening rabbits: 0.4 m² (ii) Conversion of rabbits intended for breeding: Every time male and female animals from non-organic sources are introduced there must be a conversion period lasting at least three months during which the rules set out in these specifications must be respected. (iii) Breeding: The minimum age of breeders at first coupling is 16 weeks. The number of litters per female must not exceed 6 per year.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas CAP support for developing short supply chains and local markets is financed from rural development policy, which is indeed the best approach, given that such initiatives are small-scale, highly localised and create local employment

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes, however, that the rationale for EU promotion policy needs to be better defined in order to provide it with a clearer identity; stresses that promotion activities should focus on quality and highly localised food products, rather than on basic agricultural products

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Believes that a coordinated Union- wide approach is needed in order to develop a branding which bases on the principle of short supply chains and local markets, including common definitions; accordingly calls on the Commission, in its future legislative proposals on promotion, to consider these aspects;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to ensure that future rural development programmes earmark sufficient resources to facilitate ~~thes~~sustainable forms of territorial governance by drawing on and strengthening the measures concerning local cooperation,s on systems of sustainable production. This includes supporting the local coordination, exchanges, networks, work on innovation and training ~~provided for~~ in the new rural development regulations;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes that a branding for quality products should be linked to specific production methods, geographical origins, traditions or cultural contexts, and notes that there are already existing brandings in the form of labels on protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and organic products; calls for a new 'local farming and direct sale' branding to cover local quality products intended for consumption in the region where they are produced

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that a branding that bases on 'quality', for promotion purposes, should apply not only to the characteristics of a product, but also to the way it is produced in terms of sustainability;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

- having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions NAT-V-028 (2013-05-30) on Evolution of the market situation and the consequent conditions for smoothly phasing-out the milk quota system – second "soft landing" report

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas expiry of the milk quotas will affect the entire European milk market, in particular dairy farmers in mountain areas, disadvantaged areas and outermost regions where it will not be possible to take advantage of the growth opportunities generated by deregulation;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas milk production is of vital importance to small farmers in areas with a large proportion of grassland;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas, in mountain areas, disadvantages areas and outermost regions and parts of other less-favoured areas, abandonment of stockbreeding and the related dairy production frequently leads to the abandonment of agriculture and subsequent depopulation;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that mountain milk accounts for around 10% of milk from the EU-27, but constitutes 2/3 of milk and involves 3/4 of producers in Austria, Slovenia and Finland, and that the corresponding figures also remain very significant in a further ten or so countries. In most of these humid mountain regions, and also in outermost regions, milk herds are the principal users of grasslands, keeping landscapes accessible and inhabited and so benefiting tourism, biodiversity and the environment;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls for urgent complementary studies to assess the territorial impact of quota abolition by groups of countries, regions, particularly outermost regions, and soil and climate zones – mountain areas, disadvantaged areas, intermediate mixed farming areas (livestock farming, lowlands) – so that the risks of relocation and abandonment of farms in numerous regions can be anticipated and, if possible limited;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the Commission to redefine a coherent rural and milk development project for mountain areas, for disadvantaged milk production areas and for Member States where most of the milk is produced by very small farms;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points out that, given the substantial logistical problems arising with regard to transport and the generally small quantities of milk produced on individual farms, collection costs in mountain areas, disadvantaged areas and outermost regions, are particularly high, placing them at a major geographical and competitive disadvantage; calls on the Member States and regions accordingly to earmark state subsidies for processing plant, so as to offset the higher costs of collection compared with those in more favourable locations;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses out that a Market Monitoring Tool on the milk production is needed in order to collect and disseminate data and information on production and supply;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Takes the view that any transfer of volume of raw milk sourced from less favoured areas (mountainous areas, intermediate LFAs, areas with a specific natural handicap) to an area which is not a LFA, or between different types of LFA, must be authorised in advance by the inter-branch organisation to which the collector and producer concerned belong;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that in-situ processing and marketing on farms or alpine pastures means greater added value for smallholdings and micro farms in mountain areas and enhances the tourist potential of these locations; stresses that the situation is similar in regions with very high proportion of grassland and that such initiatives should be funded under the second CAP pillar;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Points out that small farmers in mountains areas and disadvantaged areas should be supported in establishing producer organisations which strengthen their bargaining power. For small scaled farmers in these areas it is needed to keep and develop more regionalised and local markets;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/2097(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Stresses that hygiene and marketing rules have to fit to the special size of markets and their demands. Therefore the hygiene standards should be adequate and applicable for mountain farmers, farmers in disadvantaged areas and outermost regions as well as for the milk-processors in these areas;

2013/09/18
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) A high level of protection of human health and of consumers’ interests, environmental friendliness, and ~~the~~ effective functioning of the internal market should be asensured in the pursuit of Union food policies, whilst ensuring transparency. Furthermore, and in all instances, the precautionary principle as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety must apply.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) Emerging technologies in food production processes ~~may~~ have an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, it should also be clarified that a food should be considered as a novel food where a production process which was not previously used for food production in the Union is applied to that food or when foods contain or consist of engineered nanomaterials, as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council16. __________________ 16Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directive 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18).. __________________

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) When there is a significant change in the production process of a substance that has been used in accordance with Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 or Regulation (EU) No 609/2013, ~~or a change in particle size of such a substance, for example through nanotechnology, it may have~~it has an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, that substance should be considered a novel food under this Regulation and should be re-evaluated first in accordance with this Regulation and subsequently in accordance with the relevant specific legislation. When there is a change in particle size of that substance, for example through nanotechnology, it should be banned.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) The placing on the market within the Union of traditional foods from third countries should be facilitated, where the history of safe food use in a third country has been demonstrated, in accordance with rules established by the EFSA. Those foods should have been consumed in a third country for at least 25 years as a part of the customary diet within a large part of the population of the country. The history of safe food use should not include non- food uses or uses not related to normal diets.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) It should be clarified that foods from third countries which are regarded as novel foods in the Union should only be considered as traditional foods from third countries when they are derived from primary production as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, regardless of whether or not they are processed or unprocessed foods. Therefore, where a new production process has been applied to this food or where the food contains or consists of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, the food should not be considered to be traditional.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) Novel foods should be authorised and used only if they fulfil the criteria laid down in this Regulation. Novel foods should be safe and their use should not mislead the consumer, thus requiring the use of clear and precise labelling. Therefore, where a novel food is intended to replace another food, it should not differ from that food in a way that would be nutritionally, and as regards health, less advantageous for the consumer. The safety of novel foods shall be assessed on the basis of the precautionary principle as defined in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) A high level of protection of human health and of consumers’ interests, of the environment and animal welfare, and the effective functioning of the internal market should be assured in the pursuit of Union food policies, whilst ensuring transparency. At all times, moreover, the precautionary principle as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety 1 a, should be applied. __________________ 1a OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) As regards the possible use of nanomaterials for food use, EFSA considered in its opinion of 6 April 2011 on Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain21 that limited information is available in relation to aspects of nanotoxicokinetics and toxicology of engineered nanomaterials and that existing toxicity testing methods may need methodological modifications. In order to better assess the safety of nanomaterials for food use, the Commission is developing test methods which take into account specific characteristics of engineered nanomaterials. __________________ 21«Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain», EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2140.deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) Under specific circumstances, in order to stimulate research and development within the agri-food industry, and thus innovation, it is appropriate to protect the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data provided in support of an application for a novel food made in accordance with this Regulation. The newly developed scientific evidence and proprietary data provided in support of an application for inclusion of a novel food in the Union list should be protected. Those data and information should, for a limited period of time, not be used to the benefit of a subsequent applicant, without the agreement of the prior applicant. The protection of scientific data provided by one applicant should not prevent other applicants from seeking the inclusion in the Union list on the basis of their own scientific data or by referring to the protected data with the agreement of the prior applicant. However, the overall five year period of data protection which has been granted to the prior applicant should not be extended due to the granting of data protection to subsequent applicants.deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) Novel foods are subject to the general labelling requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers and other relevant labelling requirements in Union food law. ~~In certain cases it may be necessary to provide for a~~Additional labelling information should be included, in particular regarding the description of the food, its source or its conditions of use to ensure that consumers are sufficiently informed of the nature of the novel food.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation lays down rules for the placing of novel foods on the market within the Union in order to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market while providing a high level of protection of human health and consumer interests, ensuring transparency and prohibiting the placing on the market of foods using nanomaterials.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) Emerging technologies in food production processes ~~may~~ have an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, it should also be clarified that a food should be considered as a novel food where a production process which was not previously used for food production in the Union is applied to that food or when foods contain or consist of engineered nanomaterials, as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council16. __________________ 16 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directive 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18).

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii

~~(ii) food containing or consisting of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii – indent 2

~~– such substances contain or consist of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ as defined in Article 2(2)t of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) Foods with a new or intentionally modified primary molecular structure, foods consisting of, or isolated from, micro-organisms, fungi or algae, new strains of micro-organism with no history of safe use and concentrates of substances that naturally occur in plants should be considered as novel foods as defined in this Regulation.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) When there is a significant change in the production process of a substance that has been used in accordance with Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 or Regulation (EU) No 609/2013, ~~or a change in particle size of such a substance, for example through nanotechnology, it may have~~it has an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, that substance should be considered a novel food under this Regulation and should be re-evaluated first in accordance with this Regulation and subsequently in accordance with the relevant specific legislation. When there is a change in the particle size of such a substance, for example through nanotechnology, the substance must be prohibited.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall establish, publish and update a Union list of novel foods authorised to be placed on the market within the Union in accordance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 (‘the Union list’).

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) it does not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety risk to animal and human health;

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) where it is intended to replace another food, it does not differ from that food in such a way that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer or would have an adverse effect on his health.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) Implementing powers should be conferred to the Commission to decide whether a particular food falls within the definition of a novel food and is thereby subject to rules on novel food laid down in this Regulation.deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The determination of whether a food was used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997 should be based on information submitted by food business operators and, where appropriate, supported by other information available in the Member States. Food business operators should consult Member States if they are unsure of the status of the food they intend to place on the market. When there is no information or insufficient information available on human consumption before 15 May 1997, a simple and transparent procedure, involving the Commission, the Member States and food business operators, should be established for collecting such information. Implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to specify the procedural steps of such consultation process should be established for collecting such information.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) the conditions under which the novel food may be used, in order to avoid, in particular, possible adverse effects on particular groups of the population, considering in particular the appearance of new allergies, the exceeding of maximum intake levels and risks in case of excessive consumption;

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) Novel foods should be authorised and used only if they fulfil the criteria laid down in this Regulation. Novel foods should be safe and their use should not mislead the consumer, which implies clear and precise labelling. Therefore, where a novel food is intended to replace another food, it should not differ from that food in a way that would be nutritionally less advantageous for the consumer, or have negative effects on their health. The assessment of the safety of a novel food should be based on the precautionary principle as laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Novel foods should not be placed on the market or used in food for human consumption unless they are included in a Union list of novel foods authorised to be placed on the market within the Union (‘the Union list’). Therefore, it is appropriate to establish~~, by means of an implementing act,~~ a Union list of novel foods by entering novel foods already authorised or notified in accordance with Article 4, 5 or 7 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 in the Union list, including any existing authorisation conditions. As those novel foods have already been evaluated for their safety, have been legally produced and marketed in the Union and have not given rise to health concerns in the past, the advisory procedure should be used for the initial establishment of the Union list.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission ~~may~~shall request EFSA to render its opinion if the update is liable to have an effect on human health.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) It is appropriate to authorise a novel food by updating the Union list subject to the criteria and the procedures laid down in this Regulation. A procedure that is efficient, time-limited and transparent should be put in place. As regards traditional foods from third countries having a history of safe use it is appropriate to provide for a faster and simplified procedure to update the Union list if no reasoned safety objections are expressed. ~~As the updating of the Union list implies the application of criteria laid down in this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferr~~The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should therefore be delegated ton the Commission, in ~~that respec~~order to update the list.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

~~Where the Commission does not object within eight working days of being informed by EFSA, t~~The period of nine months provided for in paragraph 1 shall be automatically extended by that additional period. The Commission shall inform the Member States of that extension.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 3 is not sent to EFSA within the additional period referred to in that paragraph, ~~it shall finalise its opinion on the basis of the information already provided to it~~EFSA, being unable to formulate an opinion, shall automatically reject the application.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. Where the Commission has not requested an opinion from EFSA in accordance with Article 9(2), the nine- month period provided for in paragraph 1 shall start from the date on which the Commission received a valid application in accordance with Article 9(1).deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) As regards the possible use of nanomaterials for food use, EFSA considered in its opinion of 6 April 2011 on Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain21 that limited information is available in relation to aspects of nanotoxicokinetics and toxicology of engineered nanomaterials and that existing toxicity testing methods may need methodological modifications. In order to better assess the safety of nanomaterials for food use, the Commission is developing test methods which take into account specific characteristics of engineered nanomaterials. __________________ 21«Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain», EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2140.deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) When a novel food is authorised and included in the Union list, the Commission should have the power to introduce post- market monitoring requirements to monitor the use of the authorised novel food to ensure that the use is within safe limits as established in the safety assessment by EFSA. In any event, food business operators should inform the Commission of any relevant information regarding the food they have placed on the market.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) Under specific circumstances, in order to stimulate research and development within the agri-food industry, and thus innovation, it is appropriate to protect the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data provided in support of an application for a novel food made in accordance with this Regulation. The newly developed scientific evidence and proprietary data provided in support of an application for inclusion of a novel food in the Union list should be protected. Those data and information should, for a limited period of time, not be used to the benefit of a subsequent applicant, without the agreement of the prior applicant. The protection of scientific data provided by one applicant should not prevent other applicants from seeking the inclusion in the Union list on the basis of their own scientific data or by referring to the protected data with the agreement of the prior applicant. However, the overall five year period of data protection which has been granted to the prior applicant should not be extended due to the granting of data protection to subsequent applicants.deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) Novel foods are subject to the general labelling requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers and other relevant labelling requirements in Union food law. ~~In certain cases it may be necessary to provide~~There is a need for additional labelling information, in particular regarding the description of the food, its source or its conditions of use to ensure that consumers are sufficiently informed of the nature of the novel food.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5

5. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 4 is not sent to EFSA within the additional period referred to in that paragraph, ~~it shall finalise its opinion on the basis of the information already provided to it~~EFSA, being unable to formulate an opinion, shall automatically reject the application.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Where the Commission or EFSA requests additional information from an applicant on matters concerning risk management, it shall determine, t~~ogether with~~he time limits which it deems necessary and sufficient to enable the applicant, t~~he period within which that information must be provided~~o provide this information.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) ~~In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation w~~With regard to updating the Union list concerning the adding of a traditional food from a third country where no reasoned safety objections have been expressed, ~~implementing powers~~the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be conferred on the Commission.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 1 is not ~~receiv~~forwarded within the ~~extended period referred to in that paragraph, the Commission shall act on the basis of the information already provided~~new time limits, the Commission shall not give its approval.

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

~~1. Applicants may request confidential treatment of certain information submitted under this Regulation where disclosure of such information may significantly harm their competitive position.~~deleted

2014/10/10
Committee: INTA

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) The implementing powers relating to the d~~efinition of ‘novel food’, the consultation process for determin~~rafting and presentation of applications o~~f novel food status, other updates of~~r notifications for the inclusion of foods in the Union list, and the ~~drafting and presentation of applications or notifications for the inclusion of foods in the Union list, the arrangements for checking the validity of application~~arrangements for checking the validity of applications or notifications should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council22. The power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the authorisation of novel foods and of traditional foods from a third country, the updating of the Union list, and the consultation process for ~~notifications, confidentiality treatment and transitional prov~~determination of a novel food status. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commissions, ~~should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of~~when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and tof the Council22. __________________ 22 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules 1 a lays down general rules for the performance of official controls to verify compliance with food law. Therefore, the Member States are to carry out official controls in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, in order to enforce compliance with the present Regulation. __________________ 1a OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Corrected version (OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1). Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation lays down rules for the placing of novel foods on the market within the Union in order to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market while providing a high level of protection of human health and consumer interests. and prohibiting the placing on the market of foods in which nanomaterials are used,

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) Emerging technologies in food production processes ~~may~~ have an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, it should also be clarified that a food should be considered as a novel food where a production process which was not previously used for food production in the Union is applied to that food or when foods contain or consist of engineered nanomaterials, as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council16. __________________ 16 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directive 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18).

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) food falling within the scope of Council Directive XXX/XX/EU on [on the placing on the market of food from animal clones]. Until the date of application of that Directive, no food from cloned animals and/or their descendants shall be placed on the market.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The purpose of this Regulation is to provide a high level of protection of consumers' interests, and of animal welfare and the environment, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) When there is a significant change in the production process of a substance that has been used in accordance with Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 or Regulation (EU) No 609/2013, ~~or a change in particle size of such a substance, for example through nanotechnology, it may have~~it has an impact on food and thereby on food safety, consumer health and the environment. Therefore, that substance should be considered a novel food under this Regulation and should be re-evaluated first in accordance with this Regulation and subsequently in accordance with the relevant specific legislation. Where there is a change in the particle size of such a substance, for example through the use of nanotechnology, the substance shall be prohibited.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i

(i) food to which a new production process not used for food production within the Union before 15 May 1997 is applied, where that production process gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the food which affect its nutritional value, the way it is metabolised or, the level of undesirable substances, or where that production process might give rise to ethical concerns;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii

~~(ii) food containing or consisting of "engineered nanomaterials" as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii – indent 2

~~– such substances contain or consist of "engineered nanomaterials" as defined in Article 2(2)t of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3

Implementing power concerning the definition of novel food in Article 2(2)(a) In order to ensure the uniform implementation of this Regulation, the Commission may decide, by means of implementing acts, whether or not a particular food falls within the definition of novel food, as laid down in Article 2(2)(a). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(3).Article 3 deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Michèle RIVASI, Younous OMARJEE, José BOVÉ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Food business operators shall consult a Member State where they are unsure whether or not a food which they intend to place on the market within the Union falls within the scope of this Regulation. In that case, food business operators shall provide the necessary information to the Member State on request to enable it to determine ~~in particular the extent to which the food in question was used for human consumption within the Union before 15 May 1997~~whether or not a food falls within the scope of this Regulation. With a view to determining that, the Member State shall consult the Commission and the other Member States.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) As regards the possible use of nanomaterials for food use, EFSA considered in its opinion of 6 April 201121 on Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain that limited information is available in relation to aspects of nanotoxicokinetics and toxicology of engineered nanomaterials and that existing toxicity testing methods may need methodological modifications. In order to better assess the safety of nanomaterials for food use, the Commission is developing test methods which take into account specific characteristics of engineered nanomaterials. __________________ 21 EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2140.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The Commission may, by means of ~~implement~~delegated acts ing actscordance with Article 26 (a), specify the procedural steps of the consultation process provided for in paragraph 2.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

~~Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(3).~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. The ~~Commission shall establish and update a~~ Union list of novel foods authorised to be placed on the market within the Union in accordance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 (‘the Union list’) is laid down in the Annex.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Commission shall make the Union list available to the public on its website.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. The Commission shall also make a list of rejected applications publicly available, in order to serve as reference for future applications.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) it does not, on the basis of the independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence available, pose a safety risk to human ~~health~~or animal health or the environment;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) where it is intended to replace another food, it does not differ from that food in such a way that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer or have a negative impact on his or her health.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) In the event of doubt, due, for example, to insufficient scientific certainty or lack of data, the precautionary principle shall be applied and the food in question shall not be included in the Union list.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

No ~~later than …23 the Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, establish the Union list by entering no~~vel foods authorised or notified under Articles 4, 5 or 7 of Regulation (EC) N° 258/97 ~~in the Union list~~are listed in the Annex to this Regulation, including any existing authorisation conditions. ~~__________________ 23Publications Office: please insert date: 24 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.~~

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

~~That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 27(2).~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation lays down rules for the placing of novel foods on the market within the Union in order to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market while providing a high level of protection of human health and consumer interests and prohibiting the placing on the market of foods in which nanomaterials are used.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. The entry for a novel food in the Union list provided for in paragraph 2 shall include ~~where relevant~~:

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)

(aa) the date of entry of the novel food in the Union list;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a b (new)

(ab) the name and address of the applicant;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) the conditions under which the novel food may be used, in order to avoid, in particular, possible adverse effects on particular groups of the population, taking into account the emergence of new allergies in particular, the exceeding of maximum intake levels and risks in case of excessive consumption;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) where relevant, the conditions under which the novel food may be used, in order to avoid, in particular, possible adverse effects on particular groups of the population, the exceeding of maximum intake levels and risks in case of excessive consumption;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) where relevant, additional specific labelling requirements to inform the final consumer of any specific characteristic or food property, such as the composition, nutritional value or nutritional effects and intended use of the food, which renders a novel food no longer equivalent to an existing food or of implications for the health of specific groups of the population;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d

(d) where relevant, a post-market monitoring requirement in accordance with Article 23.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

The procedure for authorising the placing on the market within the Union of a novel food and updating of the Union list provided for in Article 8 shall start either on the Commission's initiative or following an application to the Commission by an applicant. The Commission shall forward the application to Member States and make it available to the public on its website.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c

(c) independent, peer-reviewed, publically available scientific evidence demonstrating that the novel food does not pose a safety risk to human health or the environment;

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission ~~may request EFSA to render its opinion if the update is liable to have an effect on human health~~shall forward the valid application to EFSA and request EFSA to render its opinion.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii

~~(ii) food containing or consisting of "engineered nanomaterials" as defined in Article 2(2)(t) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~procedure for~~Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 26 (a) concerning the authoris~~ing~~ation of the placing on the market within the Union of a novel foods and the updating of the ~~Union list as provided for in Article 8 shall end with the adoption of an implementing act in accordance with Article 11~~list laid down in the Annex.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii – indent 2

~~– such substances contain or consist of "engineered nanomaterials" as defined in Article 2(2)t of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011;~~deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

~~Where the Commission requests an opinion from EFSA, it shall forward the valid application to EFSA.~~ EFSA shall adopt its opinion within nine months from the date of receipt of a valid application.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) whether the composition of the novel food and the conditions of its use do not pose a risk to animal health and welfare and/or the environment.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b b (new)

(bb) whether cumulative and synergistic effects might arise, and whether particular groups of the population could be adversely affected.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

~~Where the Commission does not object within eight working days of being informed by EFSA, t~~The period of nine months provided for in paragraph 1 shall be automatically extended by that additional period. The Commission shall inform the Member States of that extension.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 3 is not sent to EFSA within the additional period referred to in that paragraph, it shall ~~finalise its opinion on the basis of the information already provided to it~~automatically reject the application made to it, given that it is unable to adopt a position.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Within nine months from the date of publication of EFSA's opinion, the Commission shall ~~submit to the committee referred to in Article 27(1) a draft implement~~be empowered to present a draft delegated act ing actcordance with Article 26 (a) updating the Union list taking account of:

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

~~That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(3).~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. Where the Commission has not requested an opinion from EFSA in accordance with Article 9(2), the nine- month period provided for in paragraph 1 shall start from the date on which the Commission received a valid application in accordance with Article 9(1).deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the ~~contents,~~ drafting and presentation of the application referred to in Article 9(1);

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the type of information required to be included in the opinion of EFSA referred to in Article 10.~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall forward the valid notification provided for in Article 13 without delay to the Member States and to EFSA and shall make it available to the public on its website.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Within four months from the date on which the valid notification is forwarded by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1, a Member State or EFSA may submit to the Commission reasoned ~~safety~~ objections regarding its compliance with Article 6, based on scientific evidence, to the placing on the market within the Union of the traditional food concerned.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4

4. Where no reasoned ~~safety~~ objections are made in accordance with paragraph 2 within the time-limit laid down in that paragraph, the Commission shall authorise the placing on the market within the Union of the traditional food concerned and update without delay the Union list.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

Where reasoned ~~safety~~ objections, based on scientific evidence, are submitted to the Commission in accordance with paragraph 2, the Commission shall not authorise the placing on the market of the traditional food concerned nor update the Union list.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5

5. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 4 is not sent to EFSA within the additional period referred to in that paragraph, it shall ~~finalise its opinion on the basis of the information already provided to it~~automatically reject the application made to it, given that it is unable to adopt a position.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Within three months of the date of publication of EFSA's opinion, the Commission shall ~~submit to the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) a draft implementing act~~be empowered to submit a draft delegated act in accordance with Article 26 (a) to authorise the placing on the market within the Union of the traditional food from a third country and to update the Union list, taking into account the following:

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

~~That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(3).~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the ~~contents,~~ drafting and presentation of the notification provided for in Article 13 and of the application provided for in Article 14(5);

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) the type of information required to be included in the opinion of EFSA referred to in Article 16.~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Where the Commission or EFSA requests additional information from an applicant on matters concerning risk management, it shall determine, t~~ogether with~~he period it deems necessary and sufficient for the applicant, t~~he period within which that information must be provided~~o be able to provide that information.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. Where the additional information referred to in paragraph 1 is not ~~receiv~~forwarded within the ~~extended period referred to in that paragraph, the Commission shall act on the basis of the information already provided~~new period laid down, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22

~~[...]~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

~~1. Applicants may request confidential treatment of certain information submitted under this Regulation where disclosure of such information may significantly harm their competitive position.~~deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 a (new)

Article 26a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 4(1), 9 (3), 11(1), and 17 (1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 7 years after entry into force of this Regulation. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 7-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(1), 9 (3), 11(1), and 17 (1) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(1), 9 (3), 11(1), and 17 (1) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, adopt transitional measures for the application of paragraphs 1 and 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(3).deleted

2014/10/14
Committee: AGRI

2013/0435(COD)