39 Amendments of Anne FERREIRA related to 2008/2306(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the study on NK603 and MON810 GM maize published by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth in November 2008,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas two GMOs are authorised for cultivation in the European Union, but no GMO has been authorised for cultivation since 1998 either under Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, since authorisation of GMO crops is a very controversial issue for a large majority of European citizens,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. Whereas a little fewer than 30s of the end of 2008, 28 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 European Union has authorised fewer GMOs than the United States and Canada, but more than China, Argentina, Brazil and India,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Whereas both the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority have always adopted favourable positions on applications for authorisation and whereas the authorisations proposed by the Commission are based solely on the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. Whereas applications for authorisation are processed and evaluated on the basis of dossiers submitted by the industry,
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Recital E c (new)
Ec. Whereas it is necessary to improve scientific assessment of the risks associated with cultivating GM crops in order to take account of their long-term effects on health and the environment and of the specific characteristics of the ecosystems and geographical areas hosting such crops,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)
Recital E d (new)
Ed. Having regard to the Council conclusions of 4 December 2008 calling for improvement of the Community legislative framework relating to GMOs in order to meet the Union's health and environmental protection objectives,
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E e (new)
Recital E e (new)
Ef. Whereas since December 2008 the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority have issued positive opinions on three applications for marketing authorisation for GMOs; whereas the Commission has called for the safeguard measures taken by three Member States to be repealed,
Amendment 39 #
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 ba because of the impact of GMO crops on health, the environment and ecosystems, and becaused on scientific groundf the implications of GMOs for the patentability of living organisms,
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. Whereas four multinationals in the world control virtually all GMO seeds, one of them alone holding 75% of GMO patents,
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. Whereas GMO crops change farming practices and have an impact on the genetic resources of the regions where the GMOs are cultivated because of their inevitable dispersion and contamination of other crops and plant varieties,
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
Ic. Whereas the study by the Joint Research Centre in 200212concluded that extending GMO cultivation will undoubtedly cause mass accidental contamination, substantially increasing the cost of protection and segregation measures to avoid contamination of conventional and organic crops,
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I d (new)
Recital I d (new)
Amendment 47 #
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 70 #
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 and of the obligations applying to the cultivation and marketing of GMOs in the European Union;
Amendment 76 #
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 evaluation of a dossier is often suspended because some of the documents are missing that must be included in the dossier for an application for authorisation of a GMO pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that, during the authorisation procedure, a qualified majority in favour or against is never reached, either in the regulatory Committee or in the Council, and that, in fine, the authorisation decision is taken by the Commission; therefore urges Member States to assume their responsibilities in order to avoid this situatcalls for the decision procedure to be changed so that the final decision is not taken by the Commission;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the need for further harmonisation 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 Stto ensure that they are based on a case-by-case assessment of each application for authorisation of a GMO, taking account of the specific features of the ecosystems and the geographical areas in which the GMOs could be cultivated;
Amendment 103 #
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; calls for environmental risk assessment to take into account the nine biogeographical regions defined in Directive 92/43/EEC;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls, in accordance with the letter from the Directorate-General for the Environment and the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers to the European Food Safety Authority, for the latter to take into account the effects of cultivating herbicide-tolerant GMOs on human health and the environment when conducting risk assessment;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Underlines the need to ensure coherence in environmental risk assessment between GMO crops which produce herbicides and the corresponding herbicides covered by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market1; 1 OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for the rapporteurs for the opinions on GMOs of the European Food Safety Authority to have the requisite skills for conducting the assessments, especially scientific environmental and ecological knowledge; calls for the European Environment Agency to be consulted when drafting the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to stop putting forward views on GMO authorisation applications until the conclusions of the Council of 4 December 2008 have been implemented;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Calls on the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2000 concerning different scientific opinions, in particular regarding the identification and publication of points of uncertainty in the data;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority to establish a network of European scientific bodies representing all the disciplines concerned with risk assessment in the cultivation, use and marketing of GMOs, in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that systematic, independent research or assessment is carried out on the possible dangers of the deliberate release or the marketing of GMOs, and that those conducting the research or assessment have access to all necessary information, with due regard to intellectual property rights;
Amendment 141 #
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, and for European agriculture and for the different economic sectors (such as food)in the medium and long term;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Acknowledges that the cultivation and placing on the market of GMOs has negative socio-economic effects, in particular the loss of more environmentally sound cultivation practices, contamination of conventional and organic crops and the considerable cost of measures to protect conventional and organic crops, etc., factors which must therefore be taken into account during the GMO authorisation procedure;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note of the existing possibility, under current authorisation procedure, to take into account other legitimate factors; takes the view, in particular, that socio- economic considerations should be taken into account as other legitimate factorsrisks linked to the deliberate release of GMOs should also be assessed;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Invites the Commission and Member States to develop a methodological framework at EU level to identify relevant socio-economic criteria; , which must at the very least deal with the cost of licences for access to seeds, measures to protect and segregate conventional and organic crops, the contamination and loss or the downgrading of conventional and organic crops (including animals), and the loss of biodiversity, given that the Commission acknowledged, in December 2008, that the European Union will fail to bring to an end the loss of biodiversity in the European Union by 2010.
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. 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 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that some Member States have adopted national measures on coexistence in accordance with Article 26a(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, which lays down the obligation to take measures to avoid the unintentional presence of GMOs in other products; invites the Commission to adopt as soon as possible a report on progress made on the implementation of national measures on coexistence;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that coexistence rules should set clear provisions regarding liability; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put forward, as soon as possible, a legislative framework dealing with responsibility for the contamination of conventional and organic crops by GMOs and the other effects of using or placing on the market GMOs, based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle and extended producer responsibility;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Stresses the need to take full account of the specific regional and local features of the Member States, in particular ecosystems and geographical zones which are unique or have special value in terms of biodiversity, agriculture, etc., or which employ special methods of cultivation;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that GMO-free zones can also be set up by means of a voluntary (possibly tacit) agreement between all operators concerned in a determined area; calls for the Council decision to be transcribed in any subsequent review of Community legislation on GMOs;
Amendment 220 #
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, for instance in sites belonging to the Natura 2000 networkgeographical areas with special characteristics in terms of the environment, agriculture, biodiversity, methods of cultivation, etc., for instance in sites belonging to the Natura 2000 network; recalls that the precautionary principle has been expressly laid down in the Treaty since 1992 and that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has on numerous occasions specified that the content and scope of this principle in Community law is one of the cornerstones of the protection policy pursued by the Community in the areas of the environment and health1;