8 Amendments of John Stuart AGNEW related to 2016/2223(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that farmers’ livelihoods depend on getting produce to the market and that loss of produce at farm level equates to loss of investment and income; acknowledges that farm subsidies do not encourage farmers or supply chain actors to consider supply and demand dynamics and considers that the supply chain needs to take more responsibility for the commercial output of farms;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the poextential for optimisation of use of to which former foodstuffs and by-products from the food chain are already used in feed production and nutrient recycling on farm and its importance for primary production, butand stresses the need for increased traceabilitydifficulty that waste legislation places on producers in the recycling and processing of by-products on and off farm;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the importance of cooperation, for example via Producer Organherent and enabling legislations, for increased access to which is severely lacking in the EU, and better targetted finance for innovation and investment in treatment technologies such as feeding waste to insects, composting and anaerobic digestion or further processing of products, which could allow farmers to access new market and customers;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the benefits of access to data and forecasts andvertical integration and cooperation to provide supply chain data and forecasts and in food traders and retailers developing advance production programmes for farmers, enabling them to better match supply to demand and minimise wastage and ensuring a fair distribution of risk in supply and demand management, and notes that these models are more common in the traditionally unsupported sectors of horticulture, pigs and poultry, highlighting the negative role that CAP subsidies have had in generating waste;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that increased research and information is needed on enabling access to secondary market opportunities and alternative uses for by-products which w, but notes that initiatives to repurpose food waste should notherwise be ploughed back into the soil or wasted replace the obligation on Member States to meet their citizens' right to food through national social security measures;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that farmer-led initiatives can offer viable economic solutions and provide value for products which might otherwise go to waste, and highlights the potential of farmer-led social innovation projects such as gleaning and donation of excess foodstuffs to food banks but notes that these initiatives risk devaluing food further and that programmes to repurpose food waste should not absolve the obligation of Member States to meet their citizens' right to food;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that some wastage at farm level is also due to the role played by retailers in relation to retailer standards regarding product specifications, cancelled orders owing to changes in consumer demand, and over-production as a result of requirements to meet seasonal demands; applauds the role of national authorities such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK in tackling these practices where they exploit farmers.