4 Amendments of Anja WEISGERBER related to 2010/0208(COD)
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed by Member States, either at central or at regional and local level. Contrary to issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs, which should remain regulated at EU level to preserve the internal market, cultivation has been acknowledged as an issue with a strong local/regional dimension/territorial dimension and as an issue of particular importance for the self-determination of Member States. In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU Member States should therefore be entitled to have a possibility to adopt rulebinding legislative provisions concerning the effective cultivation of GMOs in their territory after the GMO has been legally authorised to be placed on the EU market.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) According to the legal framework for the authorisation of GMOs, the level of protection of human/animal health and of the environment chosen in the EU cannot be revised by a Member State and this situation must not be altered. However Member States may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs in all or part of their territory on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest other thancomplementary to, or differing from, those already addrssessed by the harmonised set of EUnion rules which already. The grounds given by the Member States may include consideration of environmental impacts complementary to those already covered by the risk assessment provided for procedures to take into account the risks that a GMO for cultivation may pose on health and the environmentin Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, or other legitimate factors, such as: the absence or lack of adequate data on the potential negative impacts of GMOs on the ecosystems or public health in a Member State; the invasiveness or persistence of GM crops; grounds relating to changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs resulting in negative environmental or health impacts; grounds justifying the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer the best combination of production with ecosystem sustainability, or the existence of alternative practices to GMO cultivation and with better technical, economic or environmental performance. Those measures should furthermore be in conformity with the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of non discrimination between national and non national products and Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as with the relevant international obligations of the Union, notably in the context of the World Trade Organisation.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) On the basis of the subsidiarity principle, the purpose of this Regulation is not to harmonize the conditions of cultivation in Member States but to grant freedom to Member States to invoke otherestrict or gprounds than scientific assessment of health and environmental risks to ban cultivationhibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory on grounds relating to environmental or health impacts which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs on r otheir terrilegitimate factorys. In addition one of the purposes of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations which is to allow the Commission to consider the adoption of binding acts at EU level would not be served by the systematic notification of Member States’ measures under that Directive. Moreover, since measures which Member States can adopt under this Regulation cannot have as a subject the placing of the market of GMOs and thus does not modify the conditions of placing on the market of GMOs authorised under the existing legislation, the notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC does not appear the most appropriate information channel for the Commission. Therefore, by derogation, Directive 98/34/EC should not be applicable. A simpler notification system of the national measures prior to their adoption appears to be a more proportionate tool for the Commission to be aware of these measures. Measures which Member States intend to adopt should thus be communicated together with their reasons to the Commission and to the other Member States one month prior to their adoption for information purposes.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
(a) those measures are based on grounds other than those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOsrelating to environmental impacts which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs, and which are complementary to the environmental impacts examined during the assessment of the negative impacts on the environment conducted under Part C of this Directive, or include other legitimate factors, such as: (i) the absence or lack of adequate data on the potential negative impacts of GMOs on the ecosystems or public health in a Member State; (ii) the invasiveness and persistence of GM crops; (iii) grounds relating to changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs resulting in negative environmental or health impacts; (iv) grounds justifying the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer the best combination of production with ecosystem sustainability, or the existence of alternative practices to GMO cultivation and with better technical, economic or environmental performance;