26 Amendments of Stefan ECK related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the degree of divergence between the regulatory systems of the EU and the US is very wide in key areas for the protection of health, animal welfare and the environment, including food safety and consumer information, owing to different legal and political cultures (epitomised by the controversy over the precautionary principle);
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is important for Europethe need to get out of the commercial and agriculture to secure a mutually beneficial trade deal with the US in order to advance Europe’s position as a key player on the global marketal export policy is important for European agriculture;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas respect for food safety and human and animal health standards will be a fundamental tenet of the negotitrade relations for European agriculture;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas practices such as the treatment of poultry meat with chlorinated products, the treatment of pork meat with organic acid and the use of Somatotropin in bovine are commonly used in the meat and dairy sectors in the US;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the use of antibiotics in the EU is more restrictive than in the US and the US has not banned other pharmaceutical products as growth promoters in animals including the use of ractopanima, banned in 160 countries;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas there is a majority both in the European Parliament and amongst EU citizens which demands a prohibition of products from cloned animals and their descendants;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the EU animal welfare standards have no equivalence in the US;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas existing agreements between the US and the EU, particularly those relating to the recognition by the United States of winemaking practices, recognition of geographical indications for this sector, agreements related to sanitary measures for the protection of public and animal health have not solved today divergent conception of risk analysis;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)
Recital C i (new)
Ci. whereas the import of products which fail to meet EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, human and animal health, put farmers, consumers and animals in the EU at a disadvantage;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Recital C l (new)
Recital C l (new)
Cl. whereas the approval of TTIP would obstruct efforts to save bee populations, risking irrevocable damage to the quality and quantity of our food supply;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Recital C m (new)
Recital C m (new)
Cm. whereas the approval of TTIP would install a ‘regulatory ceiling’ hampering global pesticide regulation.
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. prioritise an ambitious and balanced result of the negotiations for agriculture, the three main components of which (market access, geographical indications and sanitary and phytosanitary measures) should be tackled early and in parallel reorientation of trade and agricultural policy by removing the negotiation process, in order to give Parliament enough time to discuss and evaluate this chapter with stakeholders and European citizeagriculture and food out of the negotiations;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. firmly commit to the strict preservation of standards on food safety and, human and animal health and animal welfare, as defined under EU legislation, and ensure that fundamental values of the EU such as the precautionary principle are not undermin, the recognition of animals as sentient beings as enshrined in Article 13 TFEU, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are not undermined and will be respected;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. prevent products that have not been produced in line with EU food safety, human and animal health, and animal welfare standards from entering the EU-market;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
bb. prevent any interference of non- democratic or non-EU bodies in or prior to the democratic decision making process in the EU regarding any future SPS- measures that might be considered;
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is very concerned that the objective of regulatory convergence, including in particular the creation of a Regulatory Cooperation Council, will lead to a lowering of future EU standards in key areas for the protection of human health, animal welfare, food safety and the environment in light of the significant differences as compared with the US;
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. ensure a positive final outcome of the negotiations for agriculture reflecting both the offensive and defensive interests of the EU agricultural sector concerning the abolition or reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, including in particular sanitary and phytosanitary standards andthat trade relations between the EU and the US do not put access to land for feeding local populations at risk; prevent products coming to market with proicedures, so that EU producers make genuine gains s below costs of production, including terms of access to the US markethe correct remuneration of the producers;
Amendment 156 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. secensure a level playing field, treating as sensitive those products for which direct competition would expose EU agricultural producers to excessive pressure, for example in cases where regulatory conditions and related costs of production in the EU diverge from those in the USthat the precautionary principle is not called into question, as this means the defence of quality standards and food safety demanded by European consumers, and serves as an added value that ensure the maintenance of public health;
Amendment 187 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
e. secure significantly improvedthe protection of EU geographical indications and better consumer information as an essential element of a balanced agreement, taking the relevant chapter of the CETA with Canada as a good example;
Amendment 203 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea. not question the aspects relating to the establishment of standards of European public procurement law, as applied in practice, especially at regional and local level, when you take into account, for example, compliance labour and social legislation and collective agreements, GPP, local hiring and prioritize local development, or attention to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which ensures that, when awarding the contract to the highest bidder, you can weigh in addition to price, other criteria such as social aspects related to sustainability;
Amendment 210 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
– affect the EU’s integrated approach to food safety, including EU legislation on animal welfare and GMOs,
Amendment 211 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. engage in a fully transparent, timely and comprehensive manner with all agricultural stakeholders on all aspects of the negotiations.sure the application of the Lisbon Treaty Article 218.10 (TFEU) which says that the European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;
Amendment 218 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
fa. encourage ambition in the EU trading partners during the negotiations or bilateral talks, to improve their domestic animal welfare legislation to standards better than, or at least comparable to, EU standards on animal welfare;
Amendment 219 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
fa. ensure that products such as GMOs or coming from cloned animals and their descendants, and with substances banned in the EU do no enter the EU market or end up in the EU food chain;
Amendment 225 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
fb. ensure a level playing field by introducing a labelling requirement for imported products that are produced by production methods that are not compliant with EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, human and animal health;
Amendment 226 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
fb. remove regulatory cooperation and any investor-state dispute settlement body (ISDS) as these defy EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, public and animal health, transparency, accountability and traceability.