15 Amendments of Eleftherios SYNADINOS related to 2016/2903(RSP)
Amendment 7 #
Recital A
A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment, the environment, biodiversity and the robustness of food chains and food webs in the medium and long term;
Amendment 19 #
Recital B
B. whereas the term “low-risk pesticides” covers both biological and synthetic chemical pesticides, but it is a general term which may prove deceptive;
Amendment 21 #
Recital Γ
C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be pesticides based on microorganisms, botanicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones and rotenone), but also substances and processes derived naturally from them, such as RNA interference (RNAi); whereas the present regulatory framework for pesticides (plant protection products) does not differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products;
Amendment 28 #
Recital Δ
D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess newinnovative and extremely varied modes of action, which is legitimate and probably beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option, and the one to be encouraged, for non-professional users and home gardening;
Amendment 38 #
Recital E
E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of biological low-risk pesticides represents an important economic barrier to manufacturerseconomic and administrative barrier to manufacturers, and whereas this is an artificial, institutional barrier which might be necessary in order to maximise the protection of public health;
Amendment 45 #
Recital ΣΤ
F. whereas there are two parallel, complementary structures, because under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, active substances are approved at Union level, while the authorisation of plant protection products containing those active substances lies within the remit of the Member States;
Amendment 51 #
Recital Θ
I. whereas biological low-risk pesticides are often refused authorisation by Member StatMember States are reluctant to authorise biological low-risk pesticides due to their lower efficacy as compared to synthetic chemical pesticides;
Amendment 57 #
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay, assigning absolute priority to specific areas such as those used by the general public and conservation areas;
Amendment 66 #
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides, including biological pesticides, as a component of integrated pest management, and considers that farmers should be informed in an informal, coordinated and institutional manner of the options available to them;
Amendment 75 #
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry; stresses that their market entry should not in general be artificially hindered in any way whatsoever, for example because of chemical pesticides already on the market;
Amendment 92 #
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the “Implementation Plan on increasing low-risk plant protection product availability and accelerating representative, integrated pest management implementation in Member States” as endorsed by the Council and gives its support to this plan; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) to follow up on the implementation of this plan;
Amendment 99 #
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority tostep up efforts regarding the evaluation, authorisation and registration of biological low-risk plant protection products;
Amendment 121 #
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a fast-trackn evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides which is fast-track but at the same time has adequate safety guarantees; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an importantadditional incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides, accompanied by a requirement for the periodic confirmation and updating of the information which appears in the authorisation report;
Amendment 128 #
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights the need for a detailed and comprehensive definition of “biological plant protection product”, covering plant protection products the active substance of which is a microorganism or a molecule or a combination of molecules and polymers existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetizsed as identical to the natural moleculeversion, in contrast to “synthetic chemical plant protection products”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature;
Amendment 130 #
Paragraph 12
12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, whose input it requests and whom it invites to engage in dialogue.