Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsVeronika Vrecionová
Amendment 74, 75, 76 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. We vote together. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 86. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 87. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 88, 89, 90, 91 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 92. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 93. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 94, 239, 240, 272 are identical. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 99. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Amendment 100. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Please check. I open the vote. Amendment 100.
I close the vote. And it was adopted. Yes, it was adopted. Compromise 2. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 102. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Compromise 3. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 110. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 118, 120, 116 and 251 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 249. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 125. Who is in favor?
Please.
Veronika Vrecionová
125. Amendment 125. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was rejected. Okay, please check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's 20-20.
It was adopted.
No, no, it was rejected.
No? It was rejected. Okay, rejected. It's 20-20. Yes.
And compromise 5. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. Amendment 95, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 257, who is in favor? Who is against? Okay, I wait. 257, who is in favor? Again, please.
I repeat it. Amendment 257, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 132, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 135, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 134, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? I think it was rejected, but please check it. I open the vote. Amendment 134.
I close the vote. Yeah, we have to repeat it because we don't have it now on machine. Please repeat. Amendment 134. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It was adopted. Compromise 6. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 147. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 152. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 7. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 10268 part 1 and 165 and 172 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 175, who is in favor? 175, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was rejected. Amendment 268, split vote part two of two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Amendment 166 and 178 are identical, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Please check, I open the vote. Amendment 166 and 178.
I close the vote. It was adopted. Compromise eight, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 51, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Amendment 195, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Amendment 199 and 200 are identical, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Amendment 196, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 198, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 271, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 9, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 48, who is in favor? Who could you repeat please? Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 49, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was it was rejected. Amendment 52, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 16, who is in favor? Who is who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Okay, let's check. I open the vote on amendment 16. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was rejected.
Amendment 17. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Please check again.
I open the vote on amendment 17. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted. Amendment 18.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 19.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 20.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Please check. I open the vote on amendment 20.
I open the vote. Still two MEPs, okay. I close the vote. And it was rejected. Amendment 21, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 23, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 24, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected, it was adopted, sorry, it was adopted. Amendment 25, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 26, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 27, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 36, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 37, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 39. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 40. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was, please, I think it was rejected, but I want to check. I open the vote, amendment 40. I close the vote.
And it was rejected. Amendment 44. Who is in favor? Who is against? I, who abstain?
It was rejected. Amendment 45. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. And now roll call vote, final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it was adopted. Thank you. Now the next vote is general budget for year 27. And I just ask my colleague to help me here. And we can start.
First will be compromise one. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise two, who is in favor? Could you show better your hand? Compromise two. I have it like compromise. It's compromise two.
So please compromise number two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise three, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise four, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted. Amendment fourteen, one four. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? Listen, I don't see enough hands, please. Could you, could you show me? Abstention.
Okay. So, let's repeat this. Amendment fourteen. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? Okay, it was rejected. Compromise six. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise seven. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise eight. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise nine. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise ten. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise eleven. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise thirteen, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment forty-two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Four, four, zero, forty. Okay, let's, let's repeat it if you want. I check, let's check it. Amendment forty, four, zero.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It was rejected. Amendment forty-one, four, one, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Compromise 14, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? Please, I want to check it because I really could saw only few hands. Compromise 14, I open the vote. I close the vote. And it was adopted.
It was adopted. Compromise 15, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted.
Amendment 49, 4-9, who is in favor? Who is against? Please check. Amendment 49, 4-9, I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it was rejected. Compromise 16, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Compromise 17. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Compromise 18. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Compromise 19. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Compromise 20. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Amendment 65, 6-5. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was rejected. Compromise 21. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Amendment 69. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was rejected. And now roll call vote, final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it was adopted.
Thank you very much.
And now last item of today voting and it will be agreement... Oh, sorry, here is second one, yes, second one of the budget amendments. Okay, it's amendment one and two, they are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains and it was adopted. Amendment three and four are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against, who abstains, it was adopted. Amendment five, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who please check, I open the vote, amendment five. I close the vote. And it was rejected. Amendment seven, who is in favor?
Who is against, who abstains, it was rejected. Amendment six, who is in favor? Who is against, who abstains, it was adopted. Amendment nine, who is in favor? Who is against, who abstains, it was rejected.
Amendment eight, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment eleven, one one, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. And amendment ten and twelve are identical, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment one three, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. And amendment fourteen and fifteen are identical, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment sixteen and seventeen are identical, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment eighteen and nineteen are identical, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment twenty and twenty-one, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment twenty-two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Okay. If you want check, it was amendment 22, 22. I open the vote. And I close the vote.
And it was rejected. Okay. And we have no final vote. And now we just go to the last item of the voting and it's temporary agreement with Armenia and it's just single vote, roll call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it was adopted. So thank you very much, colleagues. And now we have joint meeting with ENVI and it will start what now at three. It start immediately now in two minutes, please.
We just... thank you.
So, dear colleagues, I would like to ask you to take a seat. I know that after summer break you have a lot of discussion, but please, we have to start with our program. So, let's start. First, I have here these first technical, let's say, items.
Adoption of agenda is the first item and if I don't see any objection I think it was improved. And the second item is chair's announcement. First I would like to inform you that we have interpretation to 21 languages, but I also now would like to thanks really a lot to all our interpreters as well as technical staff and of course all our colleagues for both committee for organizing this meeting today. And the second information is that the electronic meeting is web streamed. And now let's start with public hearing.
Now we turn our attention to this public hearing of the simplifying EU rules on food and feed safety. This hearing is organized jointly with the ENVI committee and I really warmly welcome here all ENVI members who are present today.
As part of the cross-cutting simplification package announced last year, the Commission has adopted the food and feed simplification omnibus. It entails many changes to various area of changing rules, of all of which have significant implication for European farmers. The purpose of today's hearing is to bring together stakeholders across the agri sector, reflecting the wide-ranging scope of the omnibus to provide their views on the proposed changes. As set out in the program, we will have discussion between the experts and members in two panels. The first to provide the scientific perspective and the second to perspective of practitioners in the field.
After the panel discussion, we will hear statement from the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to provide the broader context. Before we begin, I would like to warmly welcome all our experts. Thank you for being with us and for addressing our questions. Now I give the floor to my fellow ENVI chair who will introduce the first panel discussion.
So please, the floor is yours.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, dear Veronika, and I'm delighted to be here today to chair this important public hearing and the first panel discussion. I would like to emphasize that public hearings are an important part of Parliament's work, as they allow for different perspectives to be heard and scrutinized. In fact, the hearing is just one step in the broader public and parliamentary debate on the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus. The negotiation among the political groups in the joint committee on the Food and Feed Omnibus are only at the beginning. I'm confident that in assessing and debating the Commission's proposal, members will take into account the contribution by the speaker of this public hearing, as well as the point of view of environmental organizations, scientists, and other experts.
I would like now to begin with the panel one, entitled Scientific Challenges and Opportunities of the Food and Feed Omnibus, and I would also like to thank our experts for attending this hearing today and the public for joining us, either in the room or online.
Our experts in this panel are Mrs. Anne-Katrin Mahlein, Director of the Institute of Sugar Beet Research in Göttingen; Mrs. Milvia Miccolis, Associate Professor from the Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, Plant Pathology Section at the University of Bari; Mrs. Martina Vijver, Professor and Scientific Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University. We start with Mrs. Mahlein, that is connected remotely, so we check if the connection is good.
Yes.
Anne-Katrin Mahlein
Yeah, thank you very much for the opportunity to express my opinion on the current situation on plant protection in crop production. Within the next minutes, I will share my thoughts as a phytopathologist on this topic with you. Next slide. Next slide. Plant protection and by this crop production in Europe is extremely under pressure.
The reason for that are manifold. In multiple regions in Europe, we observe an increased disease pressure with well-known pests and diseases, but also with new pests and diseases. Here especially insect pests and insects as vectors of viruses and bacteria are very problematic.
For this reason, the phenomena are complex, but changing climate conditions definitely play a significant role. Furthermore, we observe resistance of pathogens to pesticides and in parallel loss of resistances in crop varieties. That's the biological part of the story. At the same time, however, we also have lost a high number of active ingredients due to expiring registration. For multiple pests and diseases, nearly no treatment options do exist and alternatives from integrated pest managements are also missing.
But this is crucial. We need a consistent implementation of all options of integrated plant protection, including sustainable use of low-risk pesticides. To stabilize the situation and to enable innovation, a clear, time-efficient and transparent procedure for the approval of pesticides is crucial. Next slide. The situation is alarming.
On this slide, I brought you examples from sugar beet. You see approved active ingredients over the years from 2011 until today.
The active ingredients are listed by the groups herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. And you can see in blue the approved active ingredients and in red that the active ingredient is not improved or allowed to use. Since 2019, a dramatic loss of active ingredients took place, only few products are left. With such a situation, resistance management is nearly not possible because at the same time non-chemical alternatives or biological products are not available or not effective enough. Yield protection and crop productivity by thus is difficult.
Next slide. This results in a precarious situation for the farmer with many uncertainties and an increasing dependence on emergency permissions over all crops and production systems, as you can see here. There has been a dramatic increase in emergency permissions since 2020 and this trend continues. A totally new situation, especially for field crops like sugar beet, oilseed rape or wheat. Next slide.
However, in all production systems, more and more emerging pests and diseases pose a threat to production.
Some recent examples are shown on this slide. A dramatic epidemic in several crops like potato, sugar beet, and vegetables is caused each year since 2023 by the reed grass cicade transmitting a disease called syndrome basses richesses. In potato, we have damaging epidemiological factors caused by Phytophthora infestans. Viticulture is affected by flavescence dorée. A new pest like the Japanese beetle or the beet weevil are causing concerns at the farmers, the advisory service, and authorities.
Crop production is also an economic risk for our farmers and supply with high-quality food and feed is at risk. Next slide. The European Union must act urgently in agreeing on an effective Omnibus 10. This is clear: the current system does not meet the requirements and will be not easy to overcome the backlog. It takes courage and sustainable solutions.
We need both: an effective and focused review of old active ingredients and a fast evaluation of new innovative active ingredients. Biological alternatives are important, but their potential must be evaluated in a realistic way.
Administrative processes must be supported by digital routines and artificial intelligence to overcome the backlog. In parallel, Article 47 must be taken seriously, no ban of pesticides without alternatives. Here also economic and ecological aspects and resistance management must be considered. If risk mitigation strategies can be implemented in agriculture practices, like spot spraying or similar, it should be considered. Next slide.
Furthermore, a prioritized evaluation of new active ingredients is necessary, while old active ingredients should be re-evaluated in a fair and context-specific way. For both groups, risk-based assessment with scientific-based thresholds would support a transparent procedure for all stakeholders. The entire process would benefit from a focused review of specific parameters and a data call-in for specific other relevant parameters, which are relevant for the re-evaluation. We also should act future-orientated and as stated before, risk mitigation by digital technologies offers also the potential to design registration processes in a new way.
If, for example, a permission is coupled with a specific spot-spraying technology, both can be achieved: reduction of pesticides application and low risk while safeguarding yield. I conclude my statement with a clear call for more research funding. We must be at the forefront of research to strength our agriculture with sustainable alternatives from digitalization, RNAi technologies and new cropping systems. Thank you for your attention.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. The next speaker is Emilia Micoris, she is in presence.
Milvia Miccolis
Buon pomeriggio e grazie per questo invito, per me è davvero un piacere essere qui oggi. Io sono, parlo, intervengo in qualità di fitopatologa con un'esperienza nella protezione delle colture e proprio in questo settore della protezione delle colture abbiamo una forte esigenza, una sfida che è continua, che è quella di dover allo stesso tempo garantire elevati livelli di tutela della salute e dell'ambiente, ma nello stesso tempo dover garantire agli agricoltori di poter proteggere le loro colture con degli strumenti che siano efficaci, sicuri, sempre più sostenibili.
Io credo che questo intervento di semplificazione della delle procedure normative relative alla sicurezza degli alimenti e dei mangimi possa andare in questa direzione e quindi aiutare in questo senso a sopperire a queste esigenze. E riguardo ad alcuni aspetti, andrei avanti con le slide, se possibile. Riguardo a questi aspetti, sicuramente uno delle dei più significativi interventi riguarda la la questione sicuramente importante della reciprocità, ancora oltre, grazie, ancora la slide successiva. E quindi gli aspetti relativi alla reciprocità e ai limiti massimi dei residui nei prodotti importati dai paesi terzi. La situazione attuale è che il sistema europeo in realtà pone, prevede dei limiti simili per gli agricoltori gli agricoltori europei e quelli i prodotti che arrivano dai paesi terzi.
Ma in realtà le tolleranze sono previste, esistono delle tolleranze all'importazione per cui possono esistere, possono essere concesse, possono rinvenirsi residui di prodotti non più autorizzati nell'Unione Europea, purché questi limiti questi non superino dei limiti considerati come sicuri a seguito basandosi su ovviamente una valutazione di rischio.
Però la situazione è che sostanzialmente gli agricoltori europei non possono utilizzare delle sostanze per le quali poi si rinvengono residui per prodotti che entrano nel mercato europeo da paesi terzi. E ovviamente qui non è un problema solamente di sicurezza alimentare, ma sicuramente bisogna anche valutare questa poca coerenza del sistema in termini di standard produttivi. E questa proposta, così come in generale l'ampia strategia europea della reciprocità, porta proprio a favorire l'allineamento progressivo degli standard, soprattutto per le sostanze più a rischio. E quindi è sicuramente positivo questo come intervento. Dovrebbe anche portare nei paesi terzi da cui importiamo anche l'uniformarsi ai sistemi produttivi più sicuri e questo è sicuramente un aspetto positivo anche non penalizzando i nostri agricoltori che sono devono mantenersi, attenersi a livelli standard molto elevati.
E questo sicuramente possiamo considerarlo come un aspetto positivo. Un'altra questione su cui faccio giusto un cenno per questione di tempo è sicuramente quello delle colture minori e degli usi minori. Si parla di colture minori, ma in realtà molte di queste sono di rilevanza economica notevole, costituiscono una parte importante di molte filiere agroalimentari, oltre a essere importanti nella biodiversità, nella diversità delle produzioni, ma anche nella identità territoriale.
Quindi per queste qual è la criticità per gli usi minori che abbiamo con l'attuale situazione? È che abbiamo una, il tutto nasce dal sistema di autorizzazione dei prodotti fitosanitari che è necessariamente oneroso in termini di costi, o meglio di dati che devono essere forniti negli iter registrativi e quindi di tempi, di costi e di risorse che sono molto elevate. Per cui per le colture che hanno una estensione limitata, una superficie limitata, lo scarso ritorno può essere non sufficiente per stimolare le nuove autorizzazioni. Per cui il risultato è che gli agricoltori per molte di queste situazioni, come accennava prima anche nella relazione precedente si accennava alla scarsa disponibilità di strumenti poi utili per affrontare problemi fitosanitari che su queste colture sono anche molto presenti, molto frequenti. E quindi questo sicuramente aiuta tantissimo.
Sicuramente un interessante intervento della procedura di semplificazione anche riguarda l'impiego dei droni. Questi sono sicuramente possono essere considerati come uno strumento di agricoltura di precisione.
Attualmente non sono autorizzati perché rientrano nel quadro generale dei mezzi di irrorazione aerea per cui nella direttiva ci sono delle c'è il divieto all'impiego fino ad ora. La le proposte sono quelle di favorire un impiego di questi che sono poi strumenti che possono essere utili soprattutto in quelle condizioni in cui i mezzi convenzionali non consentono di operare. Per esempio terreni molto bagnati o addirittura alluvionati, pendenze critiche, i nostri vigneti eroici come vengono definiti. In quei casi la possibilità di intervenire con questi mezzi sicuramente aiuterebbe moltissimo. E soprattutto hanno dei vantaggi quali per esempio l'assenza di compattazione del suolo ma ancora di più la ridotta esposizione degli operatori che è un aspetto sicuramente importante.
Nella nuova proposta si prevedono comunque delle valutazioni ben definite da e adeguate a questi mezzi anche riguardo non solo allo a questi strumenti ma anche alle i prodotti che potrebbero essere distribuiti con questi mezzi. E questo richiede ovviamente adesso la necessità di avere dati a disposizione che in parte la ricerca sta producendo ma servono serie di dati storici soprattutto per aspetti come la deriva, la esposizione, il rischio ambientale, l'efficacia dei trattamenti con queste metodologie.
Quindi bisogna lavorare perché si possa poi fare una valutazione di rischio appropriata. Direi che forse su altre questioni tipo anche l'uso del rame andrei avanti molto rapidamente e sicuramente un punto importante è anche quello della proposta riguardante le autorizzazioni, il rinnovo delle autorizzazioni. Si sta proponendo di variare e di superare almeno per alcune sostanze, per determinate sostanze, la durata temporale delle autorizzazioni e quindi passare da un sistema che è basato su scadenze temporali, scadenze automatiche del rinnovo, che richiedono però delle procedure complesse e onerose in termini di risorse, con un sistema che invece si basi su una valutazione di rischio che possa insorgere. Ecco, direi che ho preso tutto il tempo. Il messaggio è quello di costruire procedure legislative che siano più efficaci e utili per le problematiche numerose che abbiamo.
Grazie.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes, thank you. The next speaker is Martina Vijver, professor and scientific director, Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University.
Martina Vijver
Our challenge is to make regulation as effective and efficient as possible, but never compromise the safety of people and the environment. I'm speaking for environmental scientists, toxicologists, ecologists, and medical experts, and we're deeply concerned that a number of elements in the current Omnibus proposal will weaken rather than strengthen the level of protection for pesticide regulation. The alarming signals from science are telling us not to alleviate reassessment procedures. On the contrary, the scientific evidence increasingly shows the real-world impacts of pesticides on human health and our environment are greater than anticipated during their authorization, and that periodic reassessment of substances is essential to adhere to the societal accepted safety levels. And I will share three concerns and three solutions to you with you.
Yeah, that's the first slide. Thank you. The primary concern is that a proposal for indefinite approval of pesticides, in regulatory terms 25 years, comes close to an entire generation without systematic reassessment. There are two reasons for that concern. The proposals affect the level playing field between older and newer substances and impede innovations.
After all, new substances will be on the market assessed against new, generally stricter criteria, while the old substances are not.
And in this light, it is essential to state that periodic reassessment is not an administrative repetition. It is a mechanism through which regulation keeps pace with science and the societal safety needs. Science evolves. Evidence shows us that problems are often discovered only years after products have been widely used. Recent research is drawing attention to emerging risks that were initially less understood.
Think about chronic low-dose exposure, cocktail effects, and the recently observed associations between pesticide exposure and cancers, respiratory illness, neurodegenerative diseases, and endocrine disruption. Pesticide residues have been detected in urine, in feces, and in blood of pregnant women. The evidence of environmental harm is equally alarming. Pesticide residues are found in protected nature areas. The Dutch Pesticide Atlas shows that frequently there is an exceeding of at least 50% of the surface waters.
Scientists report pesticide-related impacts to bees, dragonflies, and damselflies and all other non-target species. Farmland birds are affected and our soils critical to this food security are impacted as well. Ironically, the intensive pesticide use is degrading the soil biodiversity, which makes our agriculture more vulnerable to future pest outbreaks. So the next slide... oh no. My second concern is that there is a purely risk-triggered reassessment system that assumes that we know in advance which substances require renewed scrutiny.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Since 2011, in total 31 active ingredients were not listed as candidates for substitutions and were banned as a result of the periodic reassessment. The majority of them has been on the market for 10 plus years, which implies that citizens and the environment have been exposed for those years. This strongly indicates that listing substances as candidates for concern is inadequate as a trigger for reassessment. The question remains what evidence is in order to initiate the risk-triggered assessment under the current omnibus proposals.
Ladies and gentlemen, the pesticides do not stay within field boundaries and our understanding of their risk evolves over time. The question is therefore not whether we know everything today, the question is whether we want a regulatory system that can respond when new evidence emerges.
The periodic reassessment safeguards that reassurance. Without it, we ignore scientific progress and weaken our ability to protect environment and health. My third concern, that's the next slide, is there is no clear exit strategy for pesticides identified to be risky. This holds for the emergency authorizations, the derogations and the three-year mandatory grace period. No clear exit strategy means that the product remains on the market and continues to be used although compelling evidence is there that justifies its withdrawal.
This harms farmers and citizens and ecosystems and it blocks innovation. The first solution, next slide, is to evaluate and authorize biocontrols by their own green lanes, following initiatives already explored by the Dutch authority board, CTGB. These specific green lanes need to be based on bespoke assessment procedures reflecting the biocontrol distinct nature and low risk profiles. The second solution is removing of removing dossier delays can also be achieved through adequate staffing, digitalization and better dossier quality, see the EFSA answers within the French court. Next slide.
The third solution to ensure health is a strong signaling system. We need to be able to learn from real-world outcomes and have the obligation to act. In the medical sector, patients are monitored for years after their treatment to identify delayed adverse effects. There is currently no comparable post-authorization monitoring system for pesticides. Post-registration monitoring does not become less important, it becomes indispensable.
Last slide. We must urgently move away from our dependency on hazardous chemical pesticides that impact ecosystems and human health. If the Omnibus is adopted, our safety criteria as agreed upon may no longer be achievable. Europe can have an innovation, effective regulation and a strong protection. Of all of this, most important is that the regulatory system must remain capable of correcting yesterday's decisions with tomorrow's knowledge.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we open the floor to our colleagues. We start with the two rapporteurs. They have two minutes each.
We start with Herbert Dorfmann.
Herbert Dorfmann
Grazie Presidente. Ja, ich glaube grundsätzlich, das ist auch ein bisschen der Konnex in diesen drei Vorträgen, für die ich mich bedanke. Wir haben heute ein System, das vollkommen blockiert ist. Das heißt, wir sind nicht imstande neue Produkte zuzulassen, neue Substanzen zuzulassen. In diesem Jahrzehnt wurde bisher ein einziger Wirkstoff zugelassen.
Und das führt dann dazu, dass wir natürlich auf die alten bestehen müssen, denn wir können ja nicht ein System haben, wo wir laufend alte verlieren und keine neuen bekommen. Und deswegen, ich glaube, Ziel dieses Omnibus muss es sein, dass wir das gesamte System für Innovation öffnen. Das, glaube ich, ist der wichtigste, der wichtigste Punkt. Ich hätte nur einige Fragen an die Vortragenden. Zuerst zu Frau Direktor Malain.
Sie haben gesprochen eben genau von dieser Innovation, also der Notwendigkeit neue Wirkstoffe auf den Markt zu bekommen.
Haben Sie, wissen Sie was wirklich im Anrollen ist? Denn gerade im Bereich der Biokontrollwirkstoffe, die ja so wichtig wären, reden wir seit Jahren, dass die den Pflanzenschutz revolutionieren werden, aber was dann wirklich auf den Markt kommt oder ich den Eindruck habe, die Industrie bringt, ist dann etwas bescheiden. Sind wir nur verspätet in unseren Zulassungen oder ist die Forschung relativ langsam und bringt auch wenig auf den Markt? Una seconda domanda alla professoressa Miccolis. Lei ha giustamente parlato degli MRL.
C'è uno studio nuovo del Joint Research Center che si occupa di questi MRL. Io sono in generale sono d'accordo, però abbiamo prodotti dei quali siamo, abbiamo strettamente bisogno, per esempio il caffè o la soia. E questo studio per esempio evidenzia se noi mettiamo veramente il, diciamo, gli MRL uguali, il prezzo del caffè potrebbe triplicare nell'Unione Europea. Quindi bisogna un attimo forse anche vedere quale potrebbe essere l'effetto di una decisione del genere se presa senza criterio o senza valutare principio attivo per principio attivo, prodotto per prodotto, quale potrebbe essere l'effetto sulle importazioni.
Ein letzter Satz noch zu Frau Professor Vivier. Sie haben die Medikamente so den Vorteil bei den oder die bessere Behandlung bei Medikamenten genannt. Die Zulassung für Medikamente für ein neues Medikament in der Europäischen Union braucht 18 Monate für Pflanzenschutzmittel 7 Jahre. Also ich wäre höchst froh wenn es uns gelingen würde im Bereich der Pflanzenschutzmittel ein ähnlich effizientes System auf den Weg zu bekommen wie es wie wir es bei Medikamenten heute haben. Herzlichen Dank.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thank you. I kindly ask all the colleagues to respect the time. Michele Picaro now the other co-rapporteur 2 minutes please. He is a remotely connected if I'm not.
Michele Picaro
Grazie presidente ringrazio gli autorevoli esperti e in particolar modo la professoressa Milvia Miccolis per il suo autorevole contributo e per la professionalità con cui ha affrontato questioni di grande rilevanza scientifica e politica. La sua presenza testimonia l'eccellenza dell'Università degli Studi di Bari capace di coniugare ricerca formazione e conoscenza delle esigenze del nostro sistema agricolo. E questa audizione è importante perché il pacchetto sulla sicurezza alimentare e dei mangimi non costituisce una semplice operazione di semplificazione amministrativa.
Le decisioni sui prodotti fitosanitari incidono sulla salute, sull'ambiente, sulla produttività delle aziende e sull'autonomia alimentare dell'Unione Europea. Per questo, come relatore, intendo seguire un approccio pragmatico, fondato sulla scienza e lontano da impostazioni ideologiche. L'esperienza della professoressa Miccolis nella patologia vegetale ci ricorda che l'agricoltura europea non opera in condizioni uniformi. Clima, terreni, organismi nocivi ed esigenze delle colture mediterranee richiedono valutazioni attente alle specificità territoriali. Un'alternativa non può essere considerata disponibile soltanto in teoria: deve essere efficace, accessibile e sostenibile dal punto di vista agronomico ed economico.
Per questo ho due domande. La prima: quali criteri scientifici dovrebbero guidare la fissazione e la revisione dei limiti massimi residui, anche con riferimento alle tolleranze all'importazione? E la seconda: come possiamo garantire la massima tutela dei consumatori e allo stesso tempo evitare che i prodotti provenienti dai paesi terzi, ottenuti utilizzando sostanze non più autorizzate nell'Unione, beneficino di condizioni più favorevoli rispetto a quelle imposte agli agricoltori europei? Grazie.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Now we open the floor to the shadow rapporteurs. You have 90 seconds each. We have many catch-of-the-eye, so we kindly ask for the time. Norbert Lins for EPP is the first.
Norbert Lins
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich möchte meine Vorredner unterstützen, dass wir einen pragmatischen Ansatz brauchen, dass wir offensichtlich, wie auch die Experten gesagt haben, in einer Sackgasse... Sorry. I can go on. Ja, dass wir in einer Sackgasse beim Pflanzenschutzmittelzulassung gelandet sind.
Eine Frage an Frau Professor Dr. Malein: Könnten Sie noch mal kurz beschreiben, wie die aktuelle Vorgehensweise bei Notfallzulassungen ist und warum die nicht wirklich zukunftsfähig ist? Und dass Sie noch mal vielleicht uns klarmachen können, warum es mehr Planungssicherheit und längerfristige Zulassungen braucht.
Und ich möchte auch noch mal den Kollegen Dorfmann fragen, wie es eigentlich im Moment aussieht bei den Biocontrols in aller Munde, aber wie viel Substanz da dahinter ist und wie viel Schnelligkeit da zu erwarten ist, bis sie tatsächlich auf dem Markt sind.
Gheorghe Cârciu
Bună ziua, vă mulțumesc tuturor și antevorbitorilor care constat că sunt constructivi în primul rând. Propunerea de simplificare a cadrului european privind siguranța alimentară și protecția plantelor ridică în același timp o serie de întrebări importante privind rolul științei în procesul de reglementare. Este important ca deciziile să fie fundamentate pe noi cunoștințe științifice și tehnice, pe date de monitorizare și pe dovezi privind riscurile pentru sănătatea umană, sănătatea animală și mediu. În același timp, agricultura europeană se confruntă cu probleme fitosanitare foarte diferite de la regiune la alta în Uniunea Europeană.
Eficiența unei soluții poate depinde de condițiile pedoclimatice, de tipul de cultură și de evoluția concretă a dăunătorilor și bolilor. De aceea, este esențial ca evaluările științifice să reflecte cât mai bine realitatea din teren și să permită identificarea unor soluții eficiente, inclusiv prin promovarea substanțelor cu risc scăzut și a biocontrolului, motiv pentru care vă întreb: Cum putem face ca evaluarea științifică europeană, inclusiv prin aplicarea ghidurilor EFSA, să reflecte mai bine diversitatea condițiilor pedoclimatice și relațiile fitosanitare din diferite regiuni ale Uniunii, astfel încât fermierii să nu fie lipsiți de soluții eficiente doar pentru că anumite condiții locale nu sunt suficient de reprezentate în evaluarea standard? Și a doua întrebare: Care sunt soluțiile concrete pentru a ne asigura că rămânem independenți din punct de vedere alimentar în Comunitatea Europeană, având în vedere situația geopolitică actuală?
Mulțumesc.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The next speaker is Christophe Clergeau. Ninety seconds.
Christophe Clergeau
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Moi, je voudrais vous dire mon profond malaise cet après-midi et mon interrogation sur ce que nous sommes en tant que Parlement européen. On nous a parlé d'une perte dramatique de principes actifs depuis 2015, moi je vais vous parler d'une perte dramatique de vies. On ne nous a parlé d'épidémie de ravageurs, je vais vous parler d'épidémie de cancers.
14 000 enfants et adolescents ont été diagnostiqués en 2022 pour des cancers, 2 000 sont morts. Au moment même où nous discutons ici de l'affaiblissement de l'évaluation des pesticides chimiques, il y a dans une autre salle de ce Parlement, à quelques dizaines de mètres d'ici, une conférence pour sensibiliser sur les cancers de l'enfant, une conférence au cours de laquelle la présidente du Parlement, Roberta Metsola, a posé aux côtés de Léonore, 10 ans, une survivante des cancers. Quelle est la cohérence, quelle est la dignité de ce Parlement ? Alors j'ai trois questions précises aux différents orateurs, et peut-être que je me trompe et à ce moment-là ils me corrigeront. Madame Mailam, j'ai compris que vous aviez repris à votre compte le principe "pas d'interdiction de pesticides sans alternative".
Est-ce que c'est bien le cas, sur quels éléments scientifiques vous basez-vous ? Madame Mikoliz, j'ai compris, je me suis peut-être trompé, que vous aviez dit que nous allions grâce au projet de règlement passer d'un système d'autorisation régulière des pesticides coûteux à un système basé sur l'évaluation des risques. Votre collègue Madame Vivière a dit à peu près exactement le contraire. Et Madame Vivière, vous avez dit quel était l'état de la science, comment la science permettait de comprendre les effets combinés des expositions, l'impact des faibles doses. Est-ce que vous considérez que l'état actuel de la science a été pris en compte dans l'élaboration de cette législation ?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Next speaker, Mireia Borrás Pabón, ECR, one minute and 30.
Sí, gracias, presidente. Muchas gracias también a las tres oradoras por sus intervenciones. Bueno, aquí estamos viendo cada día una contradicción incontestable y es que la Unión Europea ha perdido ya 5,3 millones de explotaciones agrarias entre el 2005 y el 2020. Esto es casi un 40 %. Y ante esta situación, lo que hace Bruselas es imponer unos objetivos diseñados desde un despacho que consisten en reducir...
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.