Activities of Julie GIRLING related to 2016/2903(RSP)
Plenary speeches (1)
Biological low risk pesticides (debate)
Institutional motions (1)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on low-risk pesticides of biological origin PDF (160 KB) DOC (57 KB)
Oral questions (1)
Biological low-risk pesticides PDF (103 KB) DOC (17 KB)
Amendments (18)
Amendment 8 #
Recital A
A. whereas the upurpose of conventional plant protection products is increasingly conRegulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is to ensure that the approval and use of plant protection products ensures a high level of protenctious, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment;n for human health and the environment whilst at the same time safeguarding the competitiveness of Community agriculture1a ; _________________ 1aRecital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.
Amendment 14 #
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the number of active substances available on the EU market used for plant protection is decreasing; whereas EU farmers continue to require a variety of crop protection tools;
Amendment 16 #
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas preventing food waste is a priority in the EU, and access to appropriate plant protection solutions is essential in preventing damage caused by pests and diseases which results in food waste; whereas, according to the FAO, 20% of fruit and vegetable production in Europe is lost in the fields; 1a _________________ 1aFAO (2011) “Global food losses and food waste”.
Amendment 23 #
Recital C
C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be pesticides based on microorganisms, botanicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones) and their by-products; whereas the present regulatory framework for pesticides (plant protection products) does not differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products;
Amendment 26 #
Recital D
D. whereas the use of biological low- risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative tomplement the use of conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological low-risk pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option foroffer a choice in plant protection solutions available to non- professional users and home gardening;
Amendment 35 #
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas developing resistance to pesticides, including biological low risk pesticides, is of growing concern; whereas there is evidence that semio-chemicals (belonging to biological tools) begin to lose efficacy after 4-5 years1a ; whereas the highly specific modes of action possessed by some biological low risk pesticides can lead to resistance quickly; whereas according to the draft Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances, micro-organisms may only be considered low-risk unless at strain level they have demonstrated multiple resistance to antimicrobials used in human or animal medicine;1b _________________ 1aJapanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology (2002) 37(2), 99-30.
Amendment 40 #
Recital E
E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides represents an important economic barrier to manufacturers;
Amendment 56 #
Recital L
L. whereas the Commission submitted a draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed; whereas this draft provides an assumption of low-risk status for active substances which are micro- organisms;
Amendment 60 #
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay;
Amendment 65 #
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will best and most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides,different tools including biological low- risk pesticides, as a componentfollowing the principles of integrated pest management;
Amendment 74 #
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of low-risk pesticides, including new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entryto provide farmers with an appropriate level of plant protection;
Amendment 84 #
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about making biological low-risk alternatives to conventional pesticides availablethe availability of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection;
Amendment 95 #
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for swift adoption of the draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed; calls on the Commission to continuously update the criteria in line with the most up-to-date scientific knowledge;
Amendment 101 #
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, authorisation and registration of biological low-risk plant protection productlow-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides;
Amendment 109 #
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation of Regulation 1107/2009; stresses that this REFIT initiative must not lead to the lowering of food safety and environmental protection standards and should continue to safeguard the competitiveness of EU agriculture;
Amendment 115 #
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the need to revise Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to foster the development, authorisation and placing on the EU market of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides; is concerned that the current authorisation process for placing plant protection products on the market is sub- optimal for all pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides;
Amendment 123 #
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an important incentive for, including biological low-risk pesticides, without lowering the dlevelopment of biological low-risk pesticides of protection of protection of human health or the environment;
Amendment 126 #
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights the need for a definition of “biological plant protection product”, covering plant protection products the active substance of which is a microorganism or a molecule existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetized as identical to the natural molecule, in contrast to “synthetic chemical plant protection products”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature;