6 Amendments of Judith A. MERKIES related to 2011/2175(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is convinced that the prevention of food losses has to be the very first priority of an EU bio-waste policy, from both an ethical, economic and an environmental point of view;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Takes the view that food is a resource and that a hierarchy should be maintained when treating food waste, which means a cascade down from prevention, re use, recycling and as a last resort incineration or landfilling
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is aware that in Europe, where the main food waste takes place at the retail and consumption levels, there is relatively little scope for regulation and legislation to improve the situation and that the main benefit must come from an exchange of best practice, improved routines in the treatment of food and a change in behaviour on the part of companies and individuals throughout the whole food chain, from beginning to end; urges the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to lend their support to campaigns aimed at those goals;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to make an analysis of the whole food chain to identify which food sectors food waste is occurring most, and which solutions can be used to prevent food waste.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Takes the view that much food waste can be prevented if the chain of production to customer is kept as short as possible, thus preventing long storage and transportation
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that incineration can only be acceptable if it is linked to energy recovery and prevents the production of GHG emissionsof food waste is to be avoided and may only be acceptable after a hierarchy has been followed and the waste has been used to its highest value;