16 Amendments of Elisabeth JEGGLE related to 2012/2041(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) Underlines that the action plan should cover all animals under the EU animal welfare strategy, including for instance companion animals and animals used for sports, and emphasise the logical connection between animal health and the use of antimicrobials, as well as the link between animal health and human health;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for the introduction of reliable approaches in order to effect a significant decrease in resistance when rearing animals; particular attention should be paid to the rearing of young animals, which often come from different breeders and are exposed to a risk of infection when brought together;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 3
Section 1 – paragraph 3
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 5
Section 1 – paragraph 5
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that the use of antimicrobials in sub-therapeutic levels is prohibited in the EU;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to ensure implementation of the ban, adopted in 2006, on antimicrobials being used as growth promoters in the Member States;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 5 c (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Is of the view that the main objective of farmers should be to implement suitable rearing methods in order to keep their cattle healthy and productive and to safeguard their wellbeing; stresses, however, that the proper use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is necessary in order to ensure animal wellbeing;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas there ismay be a link between antimicrobials use in animals and the spread of resistance in humans, which requires further research; whereas there is a need for a coordinated, multisectoral policy approach to AMR targeting both practitioners and users in each sector;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 5 d (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Points out that antimicrobial resistance in animals differs between different species and different forms of animal husbandry;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 8
Section 1 – paragraph 8
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 9
Section 1 – paragraph 9
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10
Section 1 – paragraph 10
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to oblige the Member States to monitor the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry more efficiently and in an integrated way through the use of databases; points out that registering the use of antibiotics on farms is obligatory;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10 b (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls for separate monitoring and control by the Member States of resistance in the case of livestock, domestic animals, racing animals, etc., without giving rise to additional financial or administrative burdens for farmers, breeders or vets;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10 c (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Calls on the Commission to ensure that individual Member States have a fast, efficient diagnostic system; the correct use of antibiotics must be guaranteed by the opportunity to obtain precise bacteriological results quickly;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10 d (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Is of the view that data gathered on the use of antibiotics should be made accessible only to experts, the relevant authorities and the decision-makers concerned;