28 Amendments of Magor Imre CSIBI related to 2008/2306(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas it is necessary to improve the scientific assessment of the risks associated with cultivating GM crops, in order to take account of the environmental effects including long-term ones and specific characteristics of the ecosystems/environment and geographical areas hosting such crops,
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. Whereas, according to a Special Eurobarometer survey, published in March 2008, 58 % of the total European population is opposed to the use of GMOs in farming while 21 % support their useFebruary 2006, 62% of Europeans are worried about GMOs in food and drinks, while in March 2008 another Special Eurobarometer survey found that 58 % of the total European population is opposed to the use of GMOs in farming while 21 % support their use, which is a reduction compared to the 2005 Special Eurobarometer which found that 25% of Europeans supported the use of GMOs,
Amendment 37 #
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 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. Whereas it is necessary to ensure that scientific risk assessment associated with cultivating GM crops addresses long term impacts on the environment, as laid down in the EC legal framework on GMOs,
Amendment 56 #
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 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. Whereas tests on GM plants grown in open fields for the purposes of environmental risk assessment are carried out over a few hectares, whereas a GM crop 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 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. Whereas scientific expertise at European level must be improved in order to supplement and extend its scope and make it more balanced and multidisciplinary, so that greater account can be taken of the diversity of related agronomic and ecological issues within the European Union,
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J d (new)
Recital J d (new)
Jd. Whereas it is necessary to look for improvement of the implementation of the EU legal framework in order to better meet the objectives of the EC legislation,
Amendment 72 #
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 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Proposes that GMOs or GMO products containing seeds shall not be authorised, if the species’ centre of origin or centre of diversity is in European regions, as the modified gene can escape and spread into other native species;
Amendment 91 #
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 100 #
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 112 #
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 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises that Member States and the Commission should ensure that systematic and independent research on the potential risks involved in the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs is conducted; and that independent researchers should be given access to all relevant material, while respecting intellectual property rights,
Amendment 123 #
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 129 #
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 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Invites the EFSA and the Member States to pursue the formation of an extensive network of European scientific organisations representing all disciplines including those related to ecological issues with the assessment of risks associated with the cultivation or use of GM crops in food and feedingstuffs in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation No 178/2002;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. 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;
Amendment 139 #
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 145 #
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 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Urges the Commission to complete the regulation (EC) n° 1829/2003 concerning the non-GMOs labelling possibility proposing an harmonised GM Free labelling scheme; underlines the need of an harmonisation of this labelling to avoid competition distortions, some members states having already regulation on it, some other have not; invites the members states to facilitate the free GMs labelling in view of allowing consumers to make better informed choices;
Amendment 166 #
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 181 #
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 197 #
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 206 #
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 217 #
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;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that areas where products are labelled with Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) indications are grown should be treated as regions with specific agronomical characteristics, where Member States should be allowed the right to prohibit completely the cultivation of GMOs;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. 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;