34 Amendments of Kartika Tamara LIOTARD related to 2008/2306(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- Having regard the council meeting of 4th December 2008, where the EU Ministers of Environment have confirmed (paragraph 16 and 17) the possibility of restrictive and prohibitive measures regarding the cultivation of GMOs, based on the Precautionary Principle, in areas with specific agronomical and environmental characteristics, including isolated/remote islands,
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 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 52 #
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, but also in a political way,
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 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 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
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 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 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 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses that it is important that the information on GMOs given to the general public explains all possible consequences of GMO crops such as, for example, but not only, the market dominance of GMO producers and GMO crops’ contribution to the loss of biodiversity;
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 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that coexistence rules should set clear provisions regarding liability that should be upheld by the Member States;
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 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Is deeply concerned that no specific labelling thresholds for the presence of genetically modified seeds in conventional seeds have been established; considers positively the proposal that genetically modified DNA to be used as the unit of measure for adventitious presence throughout the agricultural chain from seed to food and feed, to ensure consistency and to avoid litigation among stakeholders;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that those thresholds should be set at the lowest possible level, preferably at zero level. If the minimal "symptomatic" presence of GMOs in the crops of traditional seeds will be allowed, this will mean that authentic traditional seeds will be lost and in this way, we do not prevent the contamination of traditional seeds and wild related to genetically modified plants species, in the long-term. The range of contamination from GMOs in natural (non-GMOs) cultivations and wildlife can even extend up to 23 km;
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 208 #
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 between all operators concerned in a determined area; . It should be taken into consideration that the Republic of Cyprus, due to its island geography and its limited area space, the multi-fracturedness of agricultural land characteristics that constitute impossible any cultivation of GMOs not to infect the flora of the island in general is seeking to declare the Republic of Cyprus into a GMO free zone.
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 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that, in addition to those possibilities, Member States must be allowed the right to prohibit completely the cultivation of GMOs in restricted geographical areas, for instance in sites belonging to the Natura 2000 network, in areas that have been designated as nature reserves by the Member States and in areas where honey is produced or where there are clearly large populations of bees;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that, in addition to those possibilities, Member States must be allowedhave the right to prohibit completely the cultivation of GMOs; in restricted geographical areas,sensitive ecosystems for instance in sitesthose belonging to the NaturaATURA 2000 network; 1 Judgment of 23 September 2003 in Case C-192/01, Commission/Denmark, ECR 2003, p. I-9693; judgment of 7 September 2004 in Case C-127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels / Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, ECR 2004, p. I-7405., as well as in areas with special agronomical and environmental characteristics also including small isolated/remote islands;
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;