42 Amendments of Hiltrud BREYER related to 2008/2306(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas it is necessary to ensure that, as laid down in the EC legal framework on GMOs, scientific risk assessment associated with cultivating GM crops takes account of the environmental effects including long-term effects as well as specific characteristics of the ecosystems/environment and geographical areas hosting such crops,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas no GMO has been authorised for cultivation since 1998 either under Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, because of the controversy concerning incomplete risk assessment in the EU,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. Whereas a little fewer than 3028 GMO products are currently authorised in the EU, directly or as derived products - cotton, maize, oilseed rape, biomass, soybean, sugar beet - almost exclusively for import; whereas the EU has authorised less GM crops than the US and Canada but more than China, Argentina, Brazil and India,
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. Whereas GMOs, notably their cultivation, give rise to discussion and questions within society as well as among the scientific community; whereas GMOs are often perceived by society in a very emotional way not necessarily based on scientific ground regarding the possible impacts of GM crops on health, the environment and ecosystems,
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. Whereas it is necessary to look for improvement of the implementation of the EU legal framework in order to better meet the objectives of the EC legislation,
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. Whereas Member States should work more closely with each other on the issue of GMOs; whereas Member States should address this issue in a practical and rational way rather than in a political way,
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. Whereas the commercial cultivation of GMOs may introduce a completely new genetic make-up over large areas,
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. Whereas the cultivation of GMOs leads to changes in agricultural practices,
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. Whereas tests on GM plants grown in open fields for the purposes of environmental risk assessment are carried out over a few hectares, whereas a GM crop which has been given a marketing authorisation may potentially be cultivated over thousands of hectares. This increase in scale may produce harmful effects which cannot be predicted on the basis of experimental studies or assessments which, as a matter of necessity, are carried out on a smaller scale,
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. Whereas scientific expertise at European level must be improved in order to make it more balanced and multidisciplinary, so that greater account can be taken of the diversity of related agronomic and ecological issues within the European Union,
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need to increase transparency at European level and national level, especially regarding the environment and health dimensions, in order to improve citizens' confideknowledge conce rning the authorisation procedure;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU authorisation procedure is facing substantial delays, and that more than 50 applications for authorisation are currently pending; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that such undue delays are avoidedmore than 50 applications for authorisation are currently pending; notes that applicant companies often do not provide the necessary information required under Directive 2001/18/EC, which result in delays;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Proposes that products which contain viable GM grains shall not be authorised if the species' centre of origin or centre of diversity is in European regions, as the modified gene can escape and spread into other native species;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that Commission decisions for GMO authorisations are exclusively based on EFSA's opinions despite the clear distinction Directive 2001/18 makes between the role of a risk manager (European Commission and Council) and a risk assessor (European Food Safety Authority);
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the need for further harmoniszation of practices and methods of assessing the environmental risks of GMOs, especially as, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the environmental evaluation is not centralised but delegated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to a Member Statewhile ensuring that each GM crop should be analysed on a case-by-case basis taking account of the characteristics of ecosystems/environments and of the specific geographical areas in which GM crops may be cultivated in accordance with existing legislation;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to further develop environmental risk assessment, in particular regarding the impact on non- target species, the potential long-term effects as well as the potential consequences of the changes in the use of herbicides caused by herbicide-tolerant genetically modified plants; underlines that the environmental risk assessment shall cover all nine EU biogeographical regions defined in the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need to ensure coherence between risk assessments of GM crops which produce active substances covered by directive 91/414/EEC and those of the corresponding plant protection products;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the ongoing revision of the EFSA's guidelines on environmental evaluation requested by the Commission; stresses that these guidelines must respect the criteria contained in the annexes of Directive 2001/18/EC; emphasises the importance of taking into account the above- mentioned aspects within the framework of this revision;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the ongoing revision of the EFSA's guidelines on environmental evaluation requested by the Commission; underlines the need for these guidelines to comply with the criteria set out in the Annexes to Directive 2001/18/EC; emphasises the importance of taking into account the above-mentioned aspects within the framework of this revision;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notes with satisfaction that the Commission's mandate to EFSA to further develop and update its guidelines as regards the environmental risk assessments of GMOs includes in particular detailed assessment of the long- term environmental effects of GM plants and covers the following areas: Environmental risk assessment of potential effects of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms, development of criteria for field trials to assess the potential ecological effects of the GMOs in receiving environments, identification of the EU geographic regions where the GMOs may be released, selection of appropriate techniques to assess potential long-term effects of GMOs including experimental and theoretical methodologies, and recommendations for establishing relevant baseline information;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises that Member States and the Commission should ensure that systematic and independent research on the potential risks involved in the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs is conducted; and that independent researchers should be given access to all relevant material, while respecting intellectual property rights,
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Urges EFSA not to issue any opinions until it has completed the European Commission mandate to improve its knowledge on the assessment of long-term environmental risks posed by GMOs;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognizes that current practice in the risk assessments do not specifically address the EU biogeographic regions, urges the Commission to ensure that the new guidelines guarantee case-by-case examination of the environmental impacts of GMOs on all biogeographic regions of the EU,
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Urges the Commission to ensure that EFSA fulfils its legal requirement to address differences in scientific opinions and to acknowledge uncertainties, as stated in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Underlines that environmental risk assessments need to be carried out and/or reviewed by experts with the necessary environmental and ecological expertise to do such studies; calls on the Commission to involve the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in the GMO risk assessment procedures concerning cultivation applications in order for the EEA to provide the necessary environmental expertise;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of taking into account socio-economic considerations into the risk management process, such as potential benefits or disadvantages for farmers, for consumers, for the society in general, for European agriculture and for the different economic sectors (such as food);over the medium and long term.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recognises that the cultivation of GM crops leads to several adverse socio- economic effects such as changes in agricultural practices, impacts on social networks, loss of traditional farming knowledge, costs to prevent contamination and thus these “legitimate factors” that must be considered during the authorisation of GMOs;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
121. Stresses the need to dramatically improve public information; calls upon Member States and the Commission to launch information campaigns to raise public awareness and public understanding in order to allow citizens to make informed choices;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Transparency and information flows must be granted also to independent experts, which will be able to use this information to check GMOs independently;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that from 2007 until 2008 the area in the EU under GM cultivation dropped and that in 20058 the total area of genetically modified maize cultivated in the EU represented around 55 000 hectares and that, in 2008, it accounted for more than 100 000 hectares, representing 1,19 % of the total area of maize cultivation in the EU; notes that the only genetically modified plant cultivated in the EU today is maize MON810;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Points out that Member States may take measures to regulate the cultivation of GM crops, under national coexistence measures in conformity with Article 26 a of Directive 2001/18 which requires to “avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products”;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on member states and the Commission to put in place legally binding strict liability legislation that covers cases of GMO contamination and other negative effects, to ensure that the polluter pays;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that those thresholds should be set at the lowest possible level in order to guarantee freedom of choice to producers and consumers of conventional, organic and GM products;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Recognises that establishing thresholds for GM contamination of seeds higher than detection limit would lead to an uncontrollable and untraceable spread of GMOs, recognises that even a minimal level of contamination of conventional seed stocks would make GMO-free agriculture impossible and would condemn conventional and organic producers with unjustifiably high social and economic costs;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Underlines the need to take full account of the specific regional and local characteristics of the Member States, particularly ecosystems / environments and specific geographical areas of particular value in terms of biodiversity and particular agricultural practices;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that GMO-free zones can also be set up by means of a voluntary agreement which could be tacit between all operators concerned in a determined area;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that, in the addition to those possibilities, and in accordance with Community law, which includes the precautionary principle, Member States must be allowed the right to prohibit completely the cultivation of GMOs in restricted geographicalgions with specific agronomical and environmental characteristics, including small isolated areas, for instance in sites belonging to the Natura 2000 network;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that areas where products are labelled with Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) indications are grown should be treated as regions with specific agronomical characteristics, where Member States should be allowed the right to prohibit completely the cultivation of GMOs;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Points out that according to current legislation each authorisation must specify what the GMO can be used for and in which biogeographical zones it may be released;