BETA

7 Amendments of Krisztina MORVAI related to 2010/0208(COD)

Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2
(2) Under this set of legislation, GMOs for cultivation shall undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market. The aim of this authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4
(4) Once a GMO is authorised for cultivation purposes in accordance with the EU legislative framework on GMOs and complies, as regards the variety that is to be placed on the market, with the requirements of EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, Member States are not authorised to prohibit, restrict, or impede its free circulation within their territory, except under the conditions defined by EU legislation, and except where, under such legislation or Article 2(2) of the TFEU, the Member State is entitled to restrict or prohibit the commercial cultivation of the GMO in question.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
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 toBy comparison with 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. In accordance with 2. Article 2(2) TFEU Member States should therefore be entitled to have a possibility to adopt rules concerning the effective cultivation of GMOs in their territory and the marketing of propagating material for this purpose after the GMO has been legally authorised to be placed on the EU market.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 6
(6) In this context, it appears appropriate to grant to Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, more freedom to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMO crops or market such propagating material on their territory without otherwise changing the system of Union authorisations of GMOs and independently of the measures that Member States are entitled to take by application of Article 26a. of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 7
(7) Member States should therefore be authorised to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs in all or part of their territory, and respectively amend those measures as they deem appropriate, at all stages of the authorisation, re-authorisation or withdrawal from the market of the concerned GMOs. This should apply as well to genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material which are placed on the market in accordance with relevant legislation on the marketing of seeds and plant propagating material and, in particular, in accordance with Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC. Measures should refer to the cultivation of GMOs only and not to the free circulation and import of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material, as or in products, and of the products of their harvest. Similarly they should not affect the cultivation of non genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material in which adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of EU authorised GMOs are found.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
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 revisduced 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 than those already addressed by the harmonised set of EU rules which already provide for procedures to take into account the risks that a GMO for cultivation may pose on health and the environment. 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.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
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 othermore stringent grounds than scientific assessment of health and environmental risks to ban cultivation of GMOs on their territory. 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 regulations27 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.
2011/02/10
Committee: AGRI