27 Amendments of Gyula HEGYI related to 2008/2306(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the EU has put in place a comprehensive legal framework on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) based on the precautionary principle; whereas the EU should now focus on the implementation of this legal frameworkstrengthen the principle of subsidiarity in order to give the right to Member States to permit GMOs or not,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. Whereas a little fewer than 30 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, as well as bacterial biomass for producing feed; whereas the EU authorized the third most type of GMO products after the US and Canada, even Argentina and Brazil authorized much less GMO products,
Amendment 35 #
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 49 #
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 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. Whereas the commercial cultivation of GMOs introduces a completely new genetic make-up over large areas,
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. Whereas the cultivation of GMOs leads to changes in agricultural practices,
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. Whereas tests on GMPs grown in open fields for the purposes of environmental risk assessment are carried out over a few hectares, whereas a GMP 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 71 #
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 75 #
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; as companies are not providing the necessary information required under Directive 2001/18/EC;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that according to the principle of subsidiarity Member States should have the right to refuse the authorization of GMOs or GMO products, which has been authorized within the EU;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Proposes that GMOs or GMO products containing seed shall not be authorized, if the species centre of origin is in the European regions, as the modified gene can escape and spread into other native species;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that Commission decisions for GMO authorisations are exclusively based on EFSA's opinions despite the clear distinction Directive 2001/18 and Regulation 1829/2003 make between the role of a risk manager (Commission and Council) and a risk assessor (European Food Safety Authority);
Amendment 94 #
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 GMP 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 GMPs may be cultivated in accordance with existing legislation;
Amendment 99 #
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; environmental risk assessment shall cover all nine EU biogeographical regions defined in the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC; the study shall be carried out in the dominant county of the biogeographical region;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need to ensure coherence between risk assessments of GMPs which produce active substances covered by directive 91/414/EEC and those of the corresponding plant protection products;
Amendment 111 #
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 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 124 #
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;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Recognizes that the current 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 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Points out that GMO-free zone means competitiveness to local farmers, as most Europeans do not want to consume GMOs; furthermore GM free seed worth more in the global seed market;
Amendment 155 #
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 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Takes the view that the Commission and Member States should explore the different labelling possibilities that would allow consumers to be informed whether or not products such as eggs, milk or meat derive from animals having been fed with GMOs; notes that such labels are already introduced by some Member States;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes 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 211 #
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 216 #
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 bare 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;