Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting Joint meeting Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety
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
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI, ENVI European Parliament
Anne-Katrin Mahlein
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 production, 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 group 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. And new pests 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 strengthen our agriculture with sustainable alternatives from digitalization, R&I technologies, and new cropping systems. Thank you for your attention.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. The next speaker is Milvia Micris. 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 e 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 questione sicuramente importante della reciprocità. Ancora oltre, grazie. Ancora la slide successiva. E quindi gli aspetti relativi alla reciprocità e ai limiti massimi di 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 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, 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 il, un uniformarsi ai sistemi produttivi più sicuri e questo è sicuramente un aspetto positivo anche non penalizzando i nostri agricoltori che sono, devono mantenere, attenersi a livelli standard molto elevati. E questo sicuramente possiamo considerarlo come un aspetto positivo.
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 delle procedure 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. 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 ed adeguate a questi mezzi anche riguardo non solo a questi strumenti ma anche ai 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 una serie di dati storici soprattutto per aspetti come la deriva, l'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 sulle altre questioni tipo anche l'uso del rame andrei avanti molto rapidamente. E sicuramente un punto importante è anche quello della proposta di 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, scusate scadenze automatiche del rinnovo che richiedono però delle procedure complesse ed 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 registrative che siano più efficaci e utili per le problematiche numerose che abbiamo. Grazie.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Grazie, 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 the 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's 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 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 of 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 a 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. 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 treatments 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 im Stande 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 zu den 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 bescheidener. Also 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 dei MRL.
C'è uno studio nuovo del Joint Research Center che si occupa di questi MRL. Io in generale sono d'accordo, però abbiamo prodotti dei quali abbiamo strettamente bisogno, per esempio il caffè o la soia. E questo studio, per esempio, evidenzia se noi mettiamo veramente 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, also 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 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, two minutes please. He is 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 rilievo scientifico e politico. 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.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we open the floor to the shadow rapporteurs. You have 90 seconds each. We have many catch-the-eye, so we kindly ask for the time. Norbert Lins from EPP is the first.
Norbert Lins
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich möchte meinen 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, yeah. Dass wir in einer Sackgasse beim Pflanzenschutzmittelzulassung gelandet sind.
Eine Frage an Frau Professor Dr. Mailahn, ob Sie noch mal kurz beschreiben könnten, 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 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.
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 nous a parlé d'épidémies de ravageurs, je vais vous parler d'épidémies 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 d'Éléonore, 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 Malaine, 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 Mikolajczyk, 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 Vivier a dit à peu près exactement le contraire. Et Madame Vivier, 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 ?
Merci.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
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 drásticamente fitosanitarios y fertilizantes hasta más de la mitad, ampliar restricciones sobre el uso de la tierra y convertir la PAC nada más y nada menos que en una carrera de obstáculos para el agricultor, lleno de ecoesquemas, controles y condicionalidades.
La doctora Malaine nos ha enseñado hoy una tabla realmente demoledora. Desde 2015 los productores de remolacha han ido perdiendo buena parte de sus herbicidas, fungicidas e insecticidas, pero sabemos que las plagas no desaparecen porque Bruselas prohíba una sustancia, porque es que el pulgón sigue ahí, la cercospora también. Y cuando se retira una herramienta sin disponer de una alternativa eficaz, el agricultor es el que debe asumir más costes y obtener rendimientos mucho menores, es decir, producir menos y mucho más caro. Por eso le quería preguntar a la doctora Malaine que si autorizar actualmente una nueva sustancia activa puede tardar hasta una media de 7 años, ¿qué margen real le queda al agricultor bajo su punto de vista para proteger los cultivos frente a plagas y patógenos? ¿Puede sobrevivir así realmente la remolacha azucarera bajo este marco regulatorio y toda la industria que depende de ella ?
También quería preguntarle a la señora Vivier por los drones agrícolas. ¿Considera que la utilización de esta tecnología permitiría reducir los costes, la exposición humana y el impacto medioambiental frente a los métodos tradicionales ? Muchas gracias.
Gilles Pennelle
Monsieur le président, si cela vous va, j'interviendrai lors du second panel et je donne mon temps de parole à mon voisin, le collègue Pinel. Merci.
Oui, merci. Nous sommes conscients des nombreuses impasses dans lesquelles se trouvent les agriculteurs face à la réduction drastique du nombre de produits phytosanitaires disponibles. Ces produits restent pourtant indispensables pour produire notre alimentation et garantir notre souveraineté alimentaire. Le principe du, ouvrez les guillemets, pas d'interdiction sans solution est donc essentiel pour garantir aux agriculteurs les moyens de protéger leurs cultures et de préserver leurs rendements. Ma question s'adresse à Madame Malaine.
Estimez-vous que ce texte apporte une solution efficace à la filière betterave ? Des points de vue de ce texte peuvent-ils être améliorés ? Je voudrais dire à Monsieur Clergeau qu'il ment, qu'il ment devant la commission parce que l'usage des produits cancérigènes ont diminué de 90% en 5 ans.
Votre catastrophisme, on n'en peut plus.
Carlo Fidanza
Sì, grazie Presidente. Ringrazio anch'io i relatori per i loro importanti contributi. E poi immagino svolgeremo un'ulteriore fase di discussione tra noi. Quindi volevo approfittare per fare un passo avanti rispetto a quello che diceva il collega Dorfmann sulla questione dei livelli massimi di residui all'importazione. E vorrei chiedere, domanda aperta forse alla dottoressa Mikolis, se l'ipotesi di avere comunque un doppio standard con una soglia di tolleranza su alcuni prodotti leggermente più alta rispetto a quella che imponiamo noi ai nostri produttori, a suo avviso, vada a realizzare pienamente un principio di reciprocità oppure no.
Io francamente ho qualche dubbio in questo caso, cioè sarebbe una posizione un po' più rigida. E poi il mercato farà la sua parte, diciamo, perché noi dobbiamo andare in maniera sempre più evidente e spedita sul principio di reciprocità che abbiamo purtroppo troppe volte visto sacrificato negli accordi internazionali commerciali che abbiamo recentemente sottoscritto e che invece dovrebbe essere ulteriormente implementato anche attraverso questa normativa.
Benoit Cassart
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président. Tout d'abord, je voudrais remercier les intervenants parce que même si les avis sont très divergents, ils montrent la complexité du problème. Et je voudrais attirer l'attention sur un élément dont, à mon avis, on ne parle pas assez, c'est que au-delà des limites de résidus autorisées dans le commerce international, il y a quelque chose de plus complexe, c'est que même si on imposait dans le commerce international des résidus identiques entre ce qui se fait chez nous et les importations, on doit aussi tenir compte que les interdictions de produits que l'on a chez nous et qui ne sont pas faites ailleurs handicapent au niveau compétitivité nos producteurs. Et dans ce contexte-là, on pourrait très bien mettre en péril des filières comme la filière de la betterave tout en n'appliquant des normes très strictes sur les produits interdits. Si on prend les néonicotinoïdes par exemple, on sait très bien que dans le sucre, il n'y a pas de problème de résidus.
Mais le fait que ce soit autorisé ailleurs et pas chez nous handicape nos producteurs. Et dans ce contexte-là, on doit aussi tenir compte de cet élément économique parce que le pire serait de mettre fin à une production vertueuse chez nous pour les remplacer par des productions non vertueuses ailleurs. Donc il faut trouver l'équilibre entre les deux. Et je crois que les éléments que vous avez mis en avant montrent bien la complexité du système et la difficulté d'avoir des solutions pragmatiques en la matière. Merci.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and many thanks to the three speakers. I think if there's one thing we all have in common is that we all want high yields with a limited, very low negative effects to public health and the environment. And that's why listening to the three speakers, I think it's very disturbing to see the slide from Mrs. Malaine with the growth of pests and diseases on the one side, but on the other side, the very clear statement by Professor Pfeifer that the use of pesticides itself is lowering soil quality and is indeed also having a negative effect on the growth of pests.
And that brings me down to what I would call our natural immune system. And that is biodiversity and nature. We need a very strong nature in order to have high yields in the field of agriculture. And that's why my question is, aren't we in some kind of dead-end road where we are forced to use more and more pesticides in order to fight the pests and diseases and at the same time destroying our natural immune system that is nature and biodiversity? And shouldn't we move towards a different agricultural model with more biological pest control systems and with a very much stronger biodiversity and nature?
Because otherwise I have the feeling that we continue in this vicious circle and I would like to have comments from the three speakers on that.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you to all the speakers and I have some questions for Prof. Martina Vever especially. And it's about biocontrols because you spoke about what you called green lane bypasses. So I wondered how would you look at a priority lane like this? What would be the most important elements? And could we learn something from other countries like Brazil in this case?
And we also know that biocontrol products are very different than conventional pesticides. So it would make sense that there would be also different risk assessment. How do you look at this? Do you think this would be feasible? And then to make it a bit bigger, if we know all of this, wouldn't it make sense to have a separate legislation for biocontrol?
And also if you agree with this, how would you look at this? How would the standalone regulation look like? Thank you.
Tilly Metz
Thank you. Thank you very much, dear chair, dear colleagues, dear guest speakers. I think the primary objective of EU pesticide legislation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment in line with the treaties. Still, and this is a fact in the two panels today, there's only one ecotoxicologist actively publishing on pesticide speaking and no expert on human health. On the other hand, several speakers represent chemical-intensive agriculture and industry.
We are here as elected members representing citizens. And a big majority of the citizens are worried today about the impact of pesticide on human health and the environment. They all have the reason to do so because our large-scale use of pesticide is linked to many neurological disorders, various types of cancer, yes, and autoimmune disease. Bas Bloem, Dutch neurologist and famous for his research on Parkinson disease, has very clearly stated that the Parkinson is a man-made disease and the tragedy is that we are not even trying to prevent it. Now to my questions.
I would like to ask the question to Dr. Martina Vever. You were critical of the risk-triggered approach to authorization. Could you say something about what such system would look like really in practice?
Can such system at all be designed in a way that it upholds environmental protection, safeguards human and animal health, and aligns with the precautionary principle? And who would be able also to trigger such a re-approval procedure and who would be in charge of the monitoring? You spoke about the issue about the cocktail effects at long term, I don't come back to that, but also the proposal abolishes both the periodic assessment and scientific insight into the assessment. So how will science survive here in in this procedures? Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the next speaker is Anja Hazekamp from the Left, she's the only shadow rapporteur, so you have three minutes.
Anja Hazekamp
Okay, thank you so much, chair. Thank you all the speakers for your contributions. I have still some concerns about this proposal for human, animal and environmental health, and some of them are highlighted today, but I have several questions to Professor Doctor Martina Vijver. You and your colleagues have extensively studied the Commission's proposal and have outlined your concerns in your study to the Dutch Parliament and here today. Now we see that the proposals for the EPP and the ECR groups in this Parliament, in their draft report, go even further in breaking down the essential rules to protect health and environment.
Would you be able to comment on their proposals as well and outline the main consequences? Secondly, you said many of the potential impacts of pesticides and their active substances are still unknown by the time of application for authorization. Could you elaborate on that or perhaps give some examples here and explain what that means for risk assessment, monitoring, and the need for re-evaluation of pesticides after their initial approval? Then, one of your concerns with the unlimited approval is that it's also unclear what would exactly trigger the need for reassessment. What would, and how does this work in practice?
So I'm very interested to hear what you see as the main bottlenecks and risks. And then lastly, if the Commission proposal in its current form would have been adopted some decades ago, would it then even have been possible to ban the few pesticides that were banned in these last decades, including the very toxic neonicotinoids, chlorpyrifos, mancozeb, just a few examples, or would they still be on the market? Or if they were banned, how much time would it have cost with the current proposal if it would have been adopted 20 years ago? So I think I'm running out of speaking time, so I'm looking forward to your answers. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Last shadow is from ECR, it's Ivan David, you're also shadow for the two committees, so you have three minutes.
Ivan David
Já se obávám, že se tady dopouštíme systematické chyby, a to v tom smyslu, že se hodnotí, že se hovoří o látkách obecně, aniž by se bralo v úvahu způsob aplikace, dávkování, rezidua, fungování metabolitů, produktů rozpadu a tak dále.
Na druhé straně víme, že se do Evropy dováží z Kanady čočka, kde je výjimečně povoleno použití pesticidů ještě tři dny před sklizní, protože to sklizeň usnadňuje. Na druhé straně se tady nezabýváme, netýká se to samozřejmě zemědělství, takzvanými vakcínami proti covidu, kde ty náklady jak zdravotní byly gigantické, ale protože jaksi v tom figuruje paní předsedkyně Komise, tak se o tom tady nesmí mluvit. Já bych chtěl říct, že když jsem před padesáti lety začínal pracovat ve výzkumu, v klinickém výzkumu léků, tak projektová dokumentace měla patnáct stránek, když jsem o dvacet let později končil, tak měla několik set stránek. Prostě proto, že ty nároky se zvyšují a je potřeba brát v úvahu, že těch způsobů, těch baterií průzkumů, ty mohou být nekonečné. A tady bych chtěl ještě vyvrátit tvrzení, které tady řekl pan kolega Dorfmann, že povolování nových léčiv trvá osmnáct měsíců a těchto chemických látek sedm let, protože to povolování léčiv je v době, když všechny výzkumné práce proběhly, takže celková doba je delší než deset let.
Takže otázka, co všechno se do té doby zahrnuje. Jinak je jasné, že můžeme žít zdravě bez potravin a nebo snášet rizika, jde o to, aby byla přiměřená a o to, to je myslím ta podstata.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now for the catch-the-eye, we have some colleagues. We start from Stefan Keller from EPP. One minute, please.
Stefan Köhler
Ja, sehr geehrter Vorsitzender, vielen Dank für die interessanten Vorträge und ich hätte zwei konkrete Fragen, weil Sie ja gesagt haben, dass immer mehr Wirkstoffe verboten sind. Und zwar hat der Feed and Food überhaupt die Möglichkeit oder wird er in seiner jetzt vorliegenden Form gerecht, dass Innovation und neue Wirkstoffe dann schneller ins Feld kommen? Und dann hätte ich gerne mal von den Wissenschaftlern gewusst, wie ist denn aktuell der Stand der Forschung, besonders bei der Krankheit Stolbur und SBR? Bietet da der Feed and Food überhaupt eine Lösung an, dass man auch in der Forschung schneller vorankommt? Vielen Dank.
Daniel Buda
Da, mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule președinte. Mulțumesc pentru expunerile făcute. Doamna Bischof-Wörth, știți că niciunul dintre noi nu-și dorește să-și otrăvească nici concetățenii, nici copiii. Suntem preocupați în același timp însă de două aspecte. Cum facem acest sector agricol să-și păstreze durabilitatea, pe de o parte, pentru că efectiv astăzi nu există alternative la unele pesticide care sunt pe piață și alternativa este închiderea acelor sectoare și eu vin din România care are un foarte mare grad de infectare cu diverse, mă rog, boli și atunci se pune întrebarea ce fel de alternative punem la îndemâna acestor fermieri care nu au astăzi nicio altă alternativă decât și pentru consumator să importe aceste produse din statele terțe.
Și mai este o altă chestiune. Cum este posibil totuși să avem niște standarde la nivelul Uniunii Europene și în același timp să avem alte standarde pentru produsele care sunt importate? Și revin cu ceea ce înseamnă acea întrebare la care n-avem un răspuns vizavi de ceea ce înseamnă autorizarea medicamentelor în optsprezece luni și a altor substanțe șapte ani.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank, ich habe eine ganz konkrete Frage an die ersten beiden Rednerinnen, denn die dritte Rednerin hat Klarstellung bezogen zu dem Thema unbefristete Zulassung und dass unbefristete Zulassung keine gute Idee ist, weder eine innovationsfördernde Idee ist, noch der Gesundheitsschutz betrifft. Deswegen möchte ich ganz konkret die ersten beiden Rednerinnen fragen. Unbefristete Zulassungen. Ich würde sie vergleichen damit, dass ein Auto einen TÜV bekommt und dann nie mehr zum TÜV fahren muss. Unbefristete Zulassungen für Pestizide, wie stehen Sie dazu?
Zweite Frage, wie stehen Sie zu dem Vorsorgeprinzip? Ist es überhaupt vereinbar, das Vorsorgeprinzip oben zu halten, wenn man die unbefristeten Zulassungen auf der anderen Seite will? Und ein Wort ist heute noch gar nicht gefallen. Das Wort Haftung. Was passiert, wenn ich Pestizide ausbringe und andere Menschen oder auch die Natur, die Umwelt Schaden erleidet?
Was ist mit dem Thema Haftung, ist es wieder mal so, dass wir über Haftung nicht reden? Ganz herzlichen Dank.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, thank you so much for this information, it's really important for people and their daily lives. I would like to direct my question to Professor Malaine. I think you make a strong case about the challenges we face. However, I think that Professor Wyber made a very good point, we do not always know ahead of the time what the risks are. The strength of our current system is that it creates an obligation to consider the risks we were not aware of at the start.
So right now we can see how important this is when it comes to pesticides with TFA. So my question is similar to Maria Noichl, if we replace the current time-limited approvals with indefinite approvals, do you not see any risks at all? The risk that we will end up allowing harmful substances to be used in pesticides for longer periods of time. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin
Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Before asking my question, I would like to spot the fact that when the MEP from the Rassemblement National answered the comment, the question from Christophe Clergeau, he made a gesture signaling that he doesn't care at all to what it was said. I think it's not something that we can accept and I think it should have been fair that you would have made a point of order on that one. Now my question is to the representative, and of course he can do it again and again if you do not do anything. So my question is to the scientist from Netherlands.
What would be to, based on your scientific expertise, what would be the concrete consequences for human health of a forever authorization of pesticides compared to the current system we have where we have a time-bound authorization? What would be the concrete consequences?
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, thank you and thank you to the speakers. I mean, I think it's like we're talking about different details, but the big thing here is it's a real change in how we're working with hazard substances, pesticides, that we're going from hazard-based approach to just risk-based and just letting go. So my question is a bit to the two first speakers, what is the, what are the risks in this for human health? Because what we're seeing right now, what we're finding in our groundwater, our drinking water, is pesticides which are banned today. But if there has been a just indefinite approval, how would we find these, these problems?
Is that just up to the goodwill of a producer and we know how much we can count on that?
so what aren't you scared of this complete change in approach to something as potentially harmless harmful as pesticides can be
Martin Häusling
Ja, ich habe oft das Wort verlorene Pestizide gehört. Jedes Pestizid, was wir vom Markt genommen haben, hat Gründe gehabt, dass wir es verboten haben. Das waren überwiegend Umweltaspekte oder Gesundheitsaspekte, also einfach verloren gegangen sind die nicht. Die Frau Malen hat angesprochen Resistenzen. Woher kommen denn Resistenzen?
Durch Anwendung von zu viel Pestiziden, durch zu einseitige Anwendung von Pestiziden. Das sind selbstgemachte Probleme. Und es wurde die Schilfglasflügelzikade angesprochen. Die kann man auch unchemisch bekämpfen, nämlich mit einer verbesserten Fruchtfolge und mit Brache, also man muss nicht immer neue Chemie dazu nehmen. Und wir haben doch immer wieder neue Punkte, warum Mittel vom Markt genommen werden müssen.
Ich erinnere nur daran, das Thema PFAS vor Jahren überhaupt kein Thema in 17 % aller Pestizide, ein Grund, das kritisch zu überprüfen. Und glauben die anwesenden Wissenschaftler wirklich, dass nach dieser Verordnung wir wirklich einen Haufen neue Pestizide oder Insektizide bekommen? Ich glaube es nicht. Noch ein Wort zu Herbert Dorfmann, dass Medizinprodukte nur 18 Monate brauchen, bis sie genehmigt werden. Da gehen jahrelange Studien voraus und nicht jetzt ein schneller Prozess von 18 Monaten, das stimmt einfach nicht.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, many question, unfortunately we have a few time so I kindly ask to our expert to answer in three minute each. We start with Anne-Katrin Mahlein.
Anne-Katrin Mahlein
Ja, vielen Dank für diese Fragen. Wir sind hier sicherlich in einem Zielkonflikt, dem man gerecht werden muss und das ist nicht einfach. Darin besteht die Herausforderung. Und dieser Zielkonflikt besteht darin, dass wir Landwirte haben, die ihren Lebensunterhalt aus der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion sichern müssen, aber auch unsere Ernährung sichern müssen. Und da ist es natürlich prioritär, dass wir ein hohes Maß an Sicherheit auch in den gesamten Prozess setzen.
Ich habe viele Fragen bekommen, ich habe versucht sie mir zu notieren und werde sie jetzt der Reihe nach beantworten. Die erste Frage war zum Thema biologische Kontrolle. Hier haben wir eine Situation, dass eine Vielzahl an Wirkstoffen in den letzten Jahren zugelassen wurde. Viele dieser Wirkstoffe stammen aber aus ähnlichen Gruppen und haben auch eine ähnliche Indikation. Das zeigt uns, dass sie eben nicht effektiv als vollwertige Alternative zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt genutzt werden können.
In der Forschung ist das Problem, dass es viele biologische Produkte gibt, die unter kontrollierten Bedingungen eine Wirksamkeit zeigen, aber unter realen Feldbedingungen noch nicht ausreichend wirksam sind. Dort müssen sie geprüft werden und dort müssen sie entsprechend auch arbeiten. Das heißt, wir brauchen hier dringend mehr Forschungsförderung, also nichts, was direkt mit dem Omnibus zu tun hat. Dann war die Frage zu den Notfallzulassungen, die ich auch als steigende Anzahl dargestellt habe. Das ist eine Unsicherheit für die Landwirtschaft.
Es gibt keine Planbarkeit. Dadurch, dass eben Wirkstoffe für gewisse Indikationen nicht vorhanden sind, müssen diese Notfallzulassungen beantragt werden, weil auch bestehende Alternativen aus dem nicht-chemischen Bereich, aus dem integrierten Pflanzenschutz nicht ausreichend wirksam sind. Und diese Beantragung erfolgt eben erst sehr zeitknapp vor der Anwendung und eben auch die Erteilung der Notfallzulassung erfolgt sehr zeitknapp.
Das ist ein Risiko. Es ist für eine begrenzte Region für einen bestimmten Zeitraum und wir haben erlebt, dass beispielsweise Schadursachen wie die Schilfklaßflügelzikade räumlich sehr hochdynamisch sind, so dass eben nicht immer jede Region, die den Bedarf hätte, auch diese Notfallzulassung anwenden kann, was eine gewisse Ungleichbehandlung natürlich erfüllt. Dann wurde ich gefragt zum Artikel 47, kein Verbot ohne Alternativen. Hier sehe ich ganz klar eine Verantwortung gegenüber der praktischen Landwirtschaft und das kulturartübergreifend. Wir haben ein bestimmtes System, was sich über viele Jahre etabliert hat und die Wissenschaft hat viele Ideen, wie wir diese Systeme auch ändern können durch neue Anbausysteme, durch Digitalisierung und ähnliches.
Aber auch hier spielt der Omnibus eine nachgeordnete Rolle und es ist dringend erforderlich, dass hier in Forschung investiert wird, um diese Systeme auch nutzbar zu machen. Für den Omnibus: Die neuen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse müssen schneller Eingang in die Bewertung finden. Wir sollten den Fokus auf neue Innovationen setzen, neue Produkte. Ich bin nicht zuversichtlich, dass hier eine lange Liste an neuen Produkten darauf wartet, schnell zugelassen zu werden, aber die wenigen, die in der Pipeline sind, sollten prioritär bewertet werden und die bestehenden Produkte sollten fair bewertet werden basierend auf neuen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen und risikobasiert. Wir brauchen auch faire Importbedingungen, wie auch angewandt, bitte?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes, I was just to say, sorry, I was inviting to conclude because it's more than 10 minutes.
Milvia Miccolis
Allora, innanzitutto grazie per tutti questi interventi, fanno capire sicuramente qual è la complessità delle diverse questioni di cui abbiamo fatto cenno. Allora, sperando di rispondere a un po' tutto quello che è stato sollevato come questioni, innanzitutto per rispondere all'onorevole Dorfmann e tutti gli altri, quelli che sono intervenuti sul discorso dei limiti massimi di residui per i prodotti importati dai paesi terzi. Credo sia una questione, ovviamente, qui la necessità è quella di dover trovare degli equilibri tra quelle che sono i fattori legati alla sicurezza alimentare, a tutela dell'ambiente, ovviamente anche questo è un aspetto importante, la concorrenza leale tra produttori europei ed extraeuropei, ma anche poi considerare le regole del commercio internazionale. Tutti questi aspetti vanno visti con attenzione e ovviamente se stiamo parlando di rendere condizioni eque tra produttori nel nostro contesto europeo e quelli extra, non dobbiamo mettere in difficoltà alcuni settori, alcune filiere. Se alcuni degli elementi di fattori di produzione o importazioni che sono critiche richiedono un'attenzione, io credo che sia utile pensare a un processo graduale di adattamento e di adeguamento delle degli standard nei diversi paesi.
Credo che il buon senso debba guidare questo processo, anche consentendo però e stimolando per quanto è possibile i paesi terzi ad adeguarsi a dei sistemi che siano appunto più rigorosi e più vicini ai nostri. Questo per quanto spero di aver risposto a questo a questo aspetto. Altri elementi che sono stati messi in evidenza sono quelli per le autorizzazioni, la libera, diciamo, il limitare la necessità di rinnovi di procedure di autorizzazione periodica. Io credo che questa sia un aspetto critico che potrebbe consentire in molti casi di superare dei problemi che non sono necessariamente legati a problemi reali di sicurezza, di messa in discussione di aspetti di sicurezza sulla salute, sull'impatto ambientale. Molto spesso la mancanza di un rinnovo e quindi poi una scarsità di strumenti che vengono resi a disposizione per gli agricoltori o per i tecnici, insomma, ecco, deriva da scelte economiche perché avviare un iter di registrazione di rinnovo comporta degli oneri notevolissimi, i costi sono altissimi, i tempi sono lunghi.
Molto spesso non c'è una convenienza economica a chi si deve investire in questo senso e questo porta necessariamente a un aspetto.
Ovviamente in questa proposta bisogna sempre tener presente il discorso della necessità di continuare a valutare i rischi che possano emergere nel tempo. Ma qui abbiamo un discorso che vale un po' per tutti gli aspetti. Io credo che nelle scelte regolatorie bisogna molto considerare quelle che sono le informazioni, le evidenze che vengono dal mondo della scienza o dalle indagini, i monitoraggi che devono essere continuati e intensificati. È sulla base di questi che credo possiamo costruire un sistema che sia molto più equilibrato e molto più utile in tutti i sensi.
Martina Vijver
Yeah, thank you very much. Well, the European Parliament is here to represent the citizens and protect the citizens, and I think that our decisions we need to make on scientific facts and science that evolves. What I see is obviously that we need to be more efficient, but that doesn't need to come with a cost of taking away the safety. I already showed you that the green lane is a kind of how it works. We see that in the Netherlands, because of the green lane, there were 13 new biocontrols taken up.
Also in Brazil, the uptake of biocontrols is increased over time. What we see and why is not working, so what can we learn from them, is that they don't have an exit strategy for the conventional chemicals then. So that's what we should learn from them. If you have an exit strategy for your hazardous chemicals, then the biocontrols will be indeed taken up and then you have lower amounts of pressure on the environment and on the risks. I also want to say that we talk about export, import and this type of things, but we're having the mandate in this country and we have to consider here the ecosystem.
So it's not only on the MRLs, the maximum levels on the food, but it's also the environment where we live in that we will impact. And that's what we can't control in the other countries, but we do see that pesticides, because they're intended to kill something, will degrade those soil qualities as well as the products and the life situations around. And we don't want to compare ourselves with that. So stick to your own mandate, this is your mandate here. We have several examples that if you don't have an exit strategy and you don't stop banning certain products, then also the innovation will not come in place.
We see that with the cherries, the growing in the Netherlands, for instance. Over more than 10 years we have already the products Exirel and Tracer to take away the Suzuki fly, and it's in an emergency law and an emergency law and an emergency law, and that makes that the biocontrol with the wasps is not even used in that type of agriculture growth anymore, and the arials are expanding a factor of three. So it's shown that it will not even take into the innovation. What else was there? Yeah, I think that, you know, if you're proud on building on scientific facts, then you should use scientific facts and not economic facts.
I mean, this is one or the other. Combined the facts, are they taken into the authorization at the moment? No, they are not. But were other questions that I had to write down very fastly. I think, oh yeah, the risk-triggered assessment.
I obviously know who is going to do the reassessment, huh, that's the Member States or the EFSA, but the thing is who is triggering it? And what is triggering it and who is triggering it? Is it the water boards, is it the medical doctors, is it who is making the trigger that there is a reassessment? And it's not one scientific article then, because we have examples now already, flupyradifurone, we have asked in 2020 already to do a reassessment and it's not yet in a reassessment state because the EFSA is not doing it. We have from October 2025, we have six active PFAS pesticides.
We know PFAS is harmful, we don't have to do science for that, and still the EFSA says it's too vague, limited value. So what is the trigger and what is the and who is triggering it in order to go for a risk-based assessment? I see my time is up.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yeah, thank you, but thank you to all the experts present on the first panel, an applause for you. Now we leave to the second panel to my colleague.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, Pier Francesco, and just now we will continue, but maybe first I ask our panelists from the second for second panel to come to sit here and then we go on. Okay, so we are here now all of us and only Robert Wiedmer, he's remotely, so that is the reason he is not here. And I would like to ask our colleague if you want to discuss please you can go discuss to lobby because we have to go on, we are a little late, so please. Dear colleague, I would like to ask you please for silence and I start. So, I open our second panel now and floor to second panel, our first speaker, all speakers have just now maximal seven minutes for for presentation and first Cédric Benoist, chair of Cereals Working Party from COPA-COGECA, the floor is yours, please.
Oh, I don't know, the presentation is can we ask our technical colleagues because we don't have presentation still, could you ask them why the presentation is not working? Just a second, please. Thank you.
So, we have technical problem now, can we maybe ask to change our speakers and the first I ask Mr. Minář for your presentation if is it because we have some technical problem with the presentation of Mr. Ben-Anouar. Do you agree? Do you agree with this? Mr. Ben-Anouar, do you agree? Yes?
Okay, please. Pane, já můžu mluvit chvilku česky, moc je mi velkou ctí tady přivítat Pavla Mináře a požádat teď jeho o prezentaci. So, Mr. Minář is director of the Department of Plant Protection Products from Czech Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. So, please, floor is yours.
Pavel Minář
Thank you very much and thank you very much, thanks to both committees for inviting me here. I don't know whether it's usual that representative of state authority is speaking in such a hearing, but I would like to add some view of state authority which is responsible for evaluation of plant protection products, evaluation of active ingredients and to present our worries or priorities. So, please the first, the next slide. So we can see that Omnibus as proposed by the Commission consists of one part which means the simplification of all procedures for biological products. Of course, we support that because it's important to open the doors to those products which are understood as alternatives and those which are connected with lower risk.
And the second one covers improvements in several areas where some practical problems appeared after implementation of 1107. And here we can see two main categories. First one, timelines, which are long-term largely exceeded for almost all procedures, both for active ingredients and at the national level for plant protection products, for formulations. So we should somehow reuse delays which exist. And then the second part, it was mentioned several times here, some solution for reduced availability of efficient tools for plant protection.
I can add only that we are those who are very often asked by farmers to find some alternative for them, to authorize them, and I may confirm that it's really more and more difficult to find alternatives after all those losses of active substances and very often happens that after we identify the alternative then the identified the alternative is lost as well in a short time.
So there what is proposed, it's some improvements of mutual recognition and in the area of minor usages. Then data protection shifted from national level to the European one and some improvements in case of emergency approvals and authorizations. I would like to say that I think all state authorities who are evaluating pesticides and dealing with authorizations are really keen to use new scientific developments, to be fair, to be objective and to not to ignore anything in the process. I would like to focus just on those delays. I can see three main factors who are affecting delays.
First one, that's constant extension of the scope of evaluation and of existing chapters. It means the evaluation of each sub-chapter becomes more difficult, more complex because the science is developing. And if I compare, for example, evaluation of effects on bees 10, 15 years ago, it's much more, much larger now and it takes much more time to us to do it properly. And we are also evaluating new things which were simply not known 15 years ago, like endocrine disruption, like we are evaluating now co-formulants, we are evaluating combitox, which was mentioned here. So this extent of evaluation of each product and active ingredient is increasing all the time.
Then further factor is limited personal capacity of regulatory authorities. We are often recommended simply if there are some delays, increase your staff, increase your capacity. However, it's very sensitive political point. Most governments try to reduce state administration, state offices and not to increase them forever. So there are authorities who were able to increase their staff, but there are relatively few of them.
We are relatively happy because our staff is constant for last 15 years. However, there are also a lot of authorities who lost some of their staff. However, they have to tackle with the applications. And then number of applications. We can see increase in case of new applications of all types.
I will illustrate it. Next slide, please. Here, those are estimates of different authorities. Those are some average. If I take 2011 when regulation 1107 was implemented as 100 percent, now you can see increase of capacity necessary for evaluating the same chapters.
So in the average, overall assessment workload for our scientists is about plus 70% to plus 130%. So it means that if we had 10 people at the beginning, now to do the same work properly would require let's say 23 persons or something like that, but it's not the case since our numbers stay the same. Next please. So I said that that increase is plus 70 to 130%. However, next slide, there are other tasks connected with authorization process like transparency regulation which implemented for us necessity to participate in public consultations, publication of studies which have to be checked, notification requirements and different additional administrative and procedural activities, and all together it further increases our workload.
Next slide please. Here I compared number of applications submitted to our authority in the Czech Republic in last say 15 years or 17 years, and you can see the number of applications is constantly increasing no matter that a lot of active substances disappeared. So if I put it all together, next please. So back to the second slide. So what can we do?
Constant extension in the scope of evaluation we cannot change simply because we follow the science and science is under development and we cannot ignore development of science. Personal capacity, that's limited, and it's not much realistic to suppose that we can double our staff. So that's my main conclusion that as a representative of regulators, I really support the Commission proposal for extension of approval period of the active substances plus revision programs which are focused on priority substances, not to ignore some science, not to leave some actives on the market forever. It's not our ambition. Our ambition is to have capacity for evaluation of that which is necessary.
So thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Sorry, I have to remind you that here is some time limit. Thank you Mr. Minář and just now let's try again Mr. Benoit, I hope just now everything works, so please.
Cédric Benoist
Je vous remercie. J'ai vu que l'ambiance était assez on va dire chaude en français et donc c'est un sujet passionnant, passionnel. Et je pense qu'au niveau de l'agriculture, on parle des produits phytos aujourd'hui, mais un agriculteur il gère son exploitation de manière systémique. Et je pense qu'il faut voir les sujets de manière globale au niveau agricole, de manière holistique. On peut parler phyto, mais on pourrait parler en même temps de NGT parce que tout est lié.
Demain, si grâce à la génétique on arrive à avoir des variétés résistantes et cetera, ça permettrait justement de baisser en fait l'utilisation de produits phytos car nous savons tous, et l'agriculteur quand il utilise un produit phyto c'est pas pour le plaisir, c'est qu'il y en a besoin. Moi aujourd'hui je vais vous parler du challenge que les agriculteurs ont sur le désherbage des céréales et comment ils gèrent leur désherbage.
Alors déjà pourquoi on désherbe des céréales ? C'est tout simplement quand vous avez des mauvaises herbes, les mauvaises herbes consomment les nutriments, les mauvaises herbes captent aussi la lumière à la place de la culture principale. Et on peut avoir des pertes jusqu'à trois tonnes par hectare sur un blé par exemple, quand on sait que le rendement moyen en Europe du blé est de cinq, un peu plus de cinq tonnes. Il y a un angle mort aussi que vous avez oublié aujourd'hui, c'est la qualité sanitaire. Les produits phytosanitaires peuvent avoir un impact et ont un impact sur la qualité sanitaire de notre récolte et peuvent améliorer cette qualité sanitaire.
Je prendrai l'exemple en France en 2024 de la problématique de l'ergot. L'ergot, c'est un alcaloïde qui donne, qui engendre la maladie des ardents. En France en 2024, on avait pratiquement 20 %, 20 % du volume de farine qui dépassait le seuil d'alcaloïde. Donc voir uniquement la face sombre des produits phyto et pas la face, je dirais ensoleillée qui amène une qualité sanitaire, on aurait pu parler mycotoxines aussi. On ne met pas des produits phyto par hasard et pas pour rien, on le met aussi parce qu'il y a un but sanitaire.
On est en pleine période de récolte en France en ce moment, j'ai des collègues qui ont des pommes de terre imcommercialisables car toutes percées par des taupins. Voilà donc n'oublions pas que les produits phyto ont un bénéfice aussi en terme de qualité. Slide suivante. Comment aujourd'hui un exploitant gère ses mauvaises herbes ? Mon grand-père, c'était la période faste, on va dire, quand il était agriculteur, il y avait un problème, une mauvaise herbe, il avait un produit phyto.
C'était facile, c'était simple. Aujourd'hui, un exploitant, il doit gérer de manière globale avec des gestions de la rotation, avec des gestions des bonnes pratiques agricoles, agronomiques et cetera. Il peut aussi utiliser de la mécanique, des nouvelles, des nouvelles technologies et il utilise aussi des produits phyto. Slide suivante. La problématique, c'est que justement le désherbage des céréales, notamment anti-graminées, devient de plus en plus complexe.
Nous perdons de plus en plus de matières actives, cela a été dit. Et ça devient quand même de plus en plus compliqué pour nous agriculteurs. En 2001, on avait 900 matières actives, aujourd'hui on en a 450. Et en 10 ans, on n'a pratiquement eu aucune nouveauté en matière de désherbage anti-graminée. C'est ça le problème.
On peut se permettre de perdre des matières actives, mais s'il y a de la nouveauté à côté. Et quand il n'y a pas de nouveauté, et bien on se retrouve dans des impasses. Aujourd'hui, j'ai entendu parler de biocontrôle, le biocontrôle en terme de désherbage est inefficace. Il peut être un peu efficace à la marge sur des maladies, il peut renforcer des plantes, des biostimulants, des choses comme ça, mais pour l'instant on est au tout début et on n'a pas en fait de solution miracle en terme de biocontrôle. Et c'est pour ça qu'à notre sens, et on le prend avec bienveillance, le cadre réglementaire d'autorisation des produits phytosanitaires au niveau européen, il doit être rééquilibré et retoiletté.
On ne peut plus continuer à notre sens sur cette route. Slide suivante. La réalité, par exemple en désherbage anti-graminée, c'est qu'il ne reste plus à disposition des agriculteurs que cinq substances. Et moins vous avez de substances, ça a été dit tout à l'heure, plus vous développez les résistances parce que vous les utilisez de manière répétée et en fait votre substance ne devient plus efficiente. Et aujourd'hui sur ces cinq, deux sont réellement efficaces, deux sont parfois interdites dans certains États membres et on va perdre bientôt le flufénacet qui va finir sa vie en 2026.
Donc en fait demain les agriculteurs pour désherber leurs céréales à l'automne, qui est la période de croissance initiale aussi des mauvaises herbes et du blé par exemple, n'auront plus rien. Le biocontrôle n'est pas disponible ou ni efficace, c'est ce que je vous ai dit. La technologie électrique ou laser pas encore au point et pas abordable. On peut l'utiliser aujourd'hui, ça commence sur des cultures à forte valeur ajoutée mais sur de la commodité comme les céréales c'est pas possible. Donc comment fait-on en attendant de disposer de solutions ?
La boîte à outils des agriculteurs se vide d'année en année. Je vous le dis clairement et ça a été dit tout à l'heure. On se retrouve avec plein de murs face à nous en termes techniques. Et les agriculteurs nous disent : qu'est-ce que vous faites ? On nous enlève tout et on ne remet pas de nouveaux outils.
Slide 6 s'il vous plaît. Quelque chose sur lequel nous serons certainement d'accord, c'est qu'il faudra soutenir l'innovation pour de nouveaux outils, quels qu'ils soient. La robotique etc., mais il faudra lever les contraintes. J'ai entendu parler de drones etc. tout à l'heure. Il y a certainement des outils qui vont arriver avec l'intelligence artificielle qui vont nous aider.
Mais pour l'instant nous estimons, nous allons avoir une période d'une dizaine d'années où il sera difficile de faire face à cet enherbement massif des céréales au niveau européen. Le toilettage du règlement 1107/2009 est pour nous indispensable afin de faciliter et accélérer l'homologation des produits phytos conventionnels comme biocontrôle. J'ai entendu parler du pas d'interdiction sans solution. Nous en sommes fans. Effectivement les agriculteurs pour ne pas se retrouver face à des murs, ils doivent avoir le proverbe pas d'interdiction sans solution qui s'applique à la réglementation.
Et puis ensuite j'ai entendu parler de réévaluer la notion de danger, de risque. Nous faisons aussi, nous avons fait beaucoup de progrès en terme d'application des produits phytosanitaires. J'ai entendu parler du problème de santé des exploitants agricoles etc. etc. Tout évolue et je pense que le règlement 1107 doit prendre en compte toutes ces nouvelles techniques que les agriculteurs utilisent au jour le jour. Je vous remercie.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And now I would like to ask our first panelist Robert Wiedmer, director of the Beratungsring, and he is I hope remotely with us today. So Mr. Wiedmer you have seven minutes.
Robert Wiedmer
Ja, vielen Dank. Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, vielen Dank für die Einladung zu dieser öffentlichen Anhörung. In meiner Präsentation möchte ich kurz auf drei Punkte eingehen. Nächste Folie bitte. Zunächst möchte ich kurz unsere Organisation, den Südtiroler Beratungsring vorstellen.
Anschließend möchte ich am Beispiel der Blattläuse im Apfelanbau aufzeigen, welche Schäden sie verursachen. Und abschließend möchte ich einen kurzen Blick auf die zukünftigen Herausforderungen werfen und aufzeigen, warum ausreichende und wirksame Pflanzenschutzmittelwirkstoffe auch künftig eine wichtige Voraussetzung für einen nachhaltigen Obstbau in Europa sind. Next slide. Der Südtiroler Beratungsring ist eine Organisation ohne Gewinnabsicht, der seit 1957 Landwirte im Feld in allen Anbaufragen unterstützt.
Unser Team bietet Obst- und Weinbauern in Südtirol, einer Provinz im Norden von Italien, eine unabhängige fachliche Beratung. Unsere Aufgabe ist es dabei, wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und praktische Erfahrungen aus dem Feld in nützliche, verlässliche und praxisnahe Empfehlungen für unsere Mitglieder umzusetzen. Next slide. Der Südtiroler Beratungsring unterstützt die Landwirte bei der Produktion von verschiedenen Kulturen. Wir bieten Anbauberatung sowohl für die integrierte als auch für die biologische Produktion an.
Wir zählen rund 5.400 Mitglieder, in der Regel alles Familienbetriebe hier in Südtirol, die insgesamt etwa 22.000 Hektar landwirtschaftliche Fläche bewirtschaften. Der Apfel ist dabei die wichtigste Kultur. Nächste Folie. Next slide. Der Pflanzenschutz ist ein wesentlicher Bestandteil sowohl des integrierten als auch des biologischen Anbaus.
Unsere Obst- und Weinanlagen sind Dauerkulturen. Im Gegensatz zu vielen Ackerkulturen werden sie nicht jedes Jahr neu gepflanzt. Die Bäume bleiben in der Regel mehr als 25 Jahre in Produktion. Schutzmaßnahmen sind besonders wichtig, da einige Schädlinge und Krankheiten langfristige Schäden verursachen und die Produktion über mehrere Jahre beeinträchtigen können. Daher müssen die Landwirte langfristig denken und ihre Kulturen über viele Jahre hinweg schützen.
Gleichzeitig bedeutet der Pflanzenschutz für die Landwirte zusätzlichen Arbeitsaufwand und Kosten, deshalb werden sie nur so effizient wie möglich und nur in den tatsächlich notwendigen Mengen eingesetzt. Next slide. Lassen Sie mich Ihnen nun ein Beispiel aus dem Apfelanbau geben. Die Apfelbauern in Südtirol müssen verschiedene Blattlausarten bekämpfen, insbesondere die mehlige Apfelblattlaus und die Blutlaus. Diese beiden zählen zu den wichtigsten Schädlingen.
Wie auf den Bildern ersichtlich, können diese Blattläuse erhebliche Schäden verursachen. Sie befallen junge Triebe, Blätter und Früchte und beeinträchtigen dadurch sowohl den Ertrag als auch die Fruchtqualität. Das Problem beschränkt sich nicht nur auf eine Vegetationsperiode, also auf ein Jahr. Ein starker Befall kann auch das Triebwachstum und die Qualität der Blütenknospen beeinträchtigen, wodurch der Ertrag auch für die darauffolgenden Jahre reduziert werden kann. Next slide.
Um eine wirksame Strategie gegen diese Blattläuse zu entwickeln, müssen mehrere wichtige Punkte berücksichtigt werden. Erstens sind für die Bekämpfung von Blattläusen während der Saison in der Regel mehrere Behandlungen erforderlich. Je nach Wirkungsweise des eingesetzten Wirkstoffs benötigen die Landwirte häufig zwei bis vier Anwendungen pro Jahr. Zweitens stellt das Resistenzmanagement eine große Herausforderung dar. Blattläuse können innerhalb einer einzigen Saison viele Generationen bilden, wodurch sich Resistenzen sehr schnell entwickeln können.
Um dies zu vermeiden, benötigen wir Wirkstoffgruppen, die während der Saison abwechselnd eingesetzt werden können. Leider wird die Zahl der verfügbaren Möglichkeiten zunehmend eingeschränkt. Next slide. Als Beispiel betrachten wir nun die Bekämpfung von Blattläusen im Apfelanbau in Italien im heurigen Jahr, also 2024. Wie Sie anhand der beiden Tabellen sehen können, steht in Italien im Rahmen der regulären Zulassung nur noch eine begrenzte Anzahl an Pflanzenschutzmittelwirkstoffen zur Verfügung.
In vielen Fällen reichen diese Wirkstoffe nicht aus, um alle Blattlausarten ausreichend zu bekämpfen. So war es heuer notwendig, um eine wirksame Blattlausbekämpfung zu gewährleisten, waren wir auf Notfallzulassungen des italienischen Gesundheitsministerium für verschiedene Wirkstoffe angewiesen. Dieses Beispiel zeigt deutlich die zunehmenden Herausforderungen für die Obstproduzenten, wenn wirksame Pflanzenschutzmittel schneller wegfallen, als neue Alternativen zur Verfügung stehen. Ein professioneller Obstbau ist ohne wirksame Pflanzenschutzmaßnahmen gegen Blattläuse leider nicht möglich. Next slide.
Mit Blick auf die Zukunft sehen wir bereits heute erhebliche Lücken bei der Verfügbarkeit von Wirkstoffen, vor allem bei Insektiziden. In einigen Fällen steht für die Bekämpfung von zentralen Schädlingen oder Krankheiten nur ein Wirkstoff zur Verfügung. Das ist keine nachhaltige Anbaustrategie. Ein wirksames Resistenzmanagement ist entscheidend, um die Obstproduktion zu sichern, die Erträge zu erhalten und gleichzeitig den Einsatz von Pflanzenschutzmittel insgesamt zu reduzieren. Gleichzeitig, wie wir heute schon gehört haben, kommen nur mehr sehr wenige neue Wirkstoffe auf den Markt.
Daher ist es wichtig, bestehende Lösungen zu erhalten und neue Forschungsergebnisse, verbesserte Applikationstechniken und andere Innovationen, die zur Risikominderung bei der Applikation beitragen, bestmöglich zu nutzen. Notfallzulassungen können in Ausnahmefällen helfen, so wie z.B. auch bei der Blattlausbekämpfung im heurigen Jahr. Sie sind für die Landwirte jedoch keine verlässliche langfristige Lösung. Was den Landwirten am meisten Sorgen bereitet, ist die Unsicherheit über die Zukunft. Sie fragen sich, werden wir auch in den kommenden Jahren noch die notwendigen Wirkstoffe zur Verfügung haben, um die Kulturen vor Schädlingen und Krankheiten zu schützen?
Und wir sehen auch, dass diese Unsicherheit bei uns Investitionen hemmt und eine langfristige Planung erschwert. Manche Landwirte raten sogar ihren Kindern ab, den Familienbetrieb hier in Südtirol zu übernehmen. Infolgedessen haben wir bereits heute das Problem, dass es nicht mehr sehr einfach ist, einen Hofnachfolger zu finden. Und damit habe ich abgeschlossen, vielen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to our members and first co-rapporteur Herbert Dorfmann. Herbert, you have two minutes.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you very much, Chair. Well, I actually have only one or two questions. The first one to Director Menà, you mentioned the challenges of the system. We have in Europe quite a complicated system, so we have the authorization of the active substances at the European level, so the European Commission, but involving our agency EFSA and the national authorities, as you are leading one of them. You mentioned the challenges at the level of at the national level.
How do you see it, you didn't say anything about the cooperation between EFSA and the national authorities? How do you see this situation, how do you see the, let's say, the cooperation between our agency and the national agencies and how could we improve and speed up, let's say, the process because I have the impression that very often there's on one side EFSA gives to the national authorities the duty to evaluate the active substance, then it takes years till they get the response and this makes things much slower. On the last presentation of Robert Wiedmer, I think it was also a clear example that sometimes we think that having less active substances we use less plant protection products, but it's rather the other way around because the less active substances we have, the more there is the problem of resistance of pests and this at the end the result is that in quantity and the challenge we use more than with more possibilities and more active substances available.
Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Herbert. And now the floor for shadows, first EPP ENVI Stefan Köhler. Stefan, you have one and a half minutes, please.
Stefan Köhler
Ja, vielen Dank und danke für die Ausführung. Ich hätte mal eine Frage an die Referenten, und zwar, wenn wir jetzt das letzte Beispiel mit den Läusen gesehen hat, Stichwort Klimawandel, die Schädlinge werden immer mehr. Und ist die Ernährungssicherheit überhaupt noch gesichert bzw. vielleicht sogar gefährdet? Und dann hätte ich noch eine Frage, was Sie bei dem aktuell vorliegenden Entwurf zu Food and Feed, was fehlt aus Ihrer Sicht, was müsste vielleicht ergänzt werden? Vielen Dank.
Gheorghe Cârciu
Vă mulțumesc. Unul dintre obiectivele principale ale acestui omnibus este simplificarea cadrului european și reducerea sarcinilor administrative. Dar pentru a vedea dacă simplificarea funcționează cu adevărat, trebuie să privim lucrurile din perspectiva celor care explică regulile și a celor care trebuie să lucreze cu ele în fiecare zi: fermierii, autoritățile și serviciile de consultanță agricolă. Așa că vă adresez următoarea întrebare: din experiența dumneavoastră din teren, unde vedeți astăzi cea mai mare discrepanță între regulile europene și realitatea cu care se confruntă fermierii și care ar fi, în opinia dumneavoastră, cea mai importantă schimbare pe care acest omnibus ar trebui să o aducă pentru ca regulile să fie mai simple, mai previzibile și mai ușor de aplicat? O a doua întrebare: cum putem să menținem sau să creștem producția atunci când o soluție de protecție a culturilor este retrasă și întârzie înlocuitorul pentru că nu avem o validare EFSA, având în vedere că avem substanțe cu autorizare pe perioadă determinată?
Și ce instrumente punem la dispoziția fermierilor pentru a putea concura cu cei din afara comunității europene, având în vedere că la anumite produse suntem dispuși să importăm din afara comunității europene, lucru care mă îngrijorează în ceea ce privește competitivitatea fermierilor europeni. Vă mulțumesc.
Christophe Clergeau
Merci, Madame la Présidente. J'ai d'abord deux questions pour Monsieur Minard. La première, vous avez dit que vous souhaitiez pouvoir utiliser les dernières données scientifiques disponibles. Mais le texte va vous l'interdire, puisque le texte proposé par la Commission prévoit explicitement que les autorités nationales ne pourront que se référer au dernier avis de l'EFSA publié sur la substance active quand ils devront s'attaquer à l'évaluation des produits. Donc vous ne pourrez pas utiliser les dernières données scientifiques disponibles.
Donc quelle est votre réaction? Et ensuite, vous nous avez dit en fait, et je vous remercie pour votre honnêteté, que si on révisait la législation, c'était pour pouvoir l'adapter au niveau des moyens disponibles pour traiter les dossiers, et notamment des moyens humains. Est-ce qu'en tant que citoyen, vous trouvez que c'est une bonne manière de construire la législation? Votre collègue directeur général de l'EFSA a clairement dit de son point de vue que quelques dizaines de personnes en plus dans les différentes agences pourraient permettre d'accélérer le traitement des dossiers mieux que la législation qui était proposée. Et pour les deux autres orateurs, je voudrais vous poser deux questions très courtes.
La première, c'est pourquoi vous perdez des substances disponibles? Est-ce que vous pouvez me dire pourquoi, dans votre bouche? Et ensuite, est-ce que vous estimez que l'effort de recherche pour développer les alternatives est suffisant? Moi, je pense que non, et qu'il y a un intérêt aux grandes entreprises internationales de ne pas dépenser d'argent dans les recherches sur les alternatives pour justifier de maintenir sur le marché les produits existants et qui n'ont pas d'alternative. Et c'est un cercle vicieux dans lequel on est enfermé.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Now Patriots AG, Madame Pabon is not there. If somebody wants to take the floor, okay. In this case, Patriots ENVI, Madame Frigout.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, merci aux experts pour leur contribution à nos débats sur l'omnibus sécurité alimentaire et surtout pour avoir rappelé l'importance de fonder nos décisions sur la science. Rappelons que certains ici, dans ces institutions, pensent qu'il peut exister une agriculture sans produits phytosanitaires mais tout autant productive. La stratégie de la ferme à la fourchette repose par exemple sur l'objectif de réduire de 50 % l'usage des produits phytosanitaires et d'atteindre 25 % de surface agricole bio d'ici 2030. Mais ces objectifs ne peuvent pas être fixés sans mesurer leurs conséquences sur les rendements, sur les prix et pour notre autonomie alimentaire. Récemment, la crise de la jaunisse de la betterave aurait dû nous alerter.
Dans certaines régions, les pertes de rendement ont pu dépasser 50 % après l'interdiction de l'acétamipride en France. Et il suffit d'observer les champs de betteraves marnais dans ma région pour comprendre l'inquiétude de nos agriculteurs pour l'avenir. Autre exemple, une partie du blé tendre bio ne présente pas les qualités boulangères nécessaires, notamment en protéines et en gluten, et doit être déclassée en alimentation animale. Cela peut contribuer à accroître notre dépendance aux importations. J'aurais donc souhaité savoir si vous disposez d'études permettant de mesurer précisément les conséquences du remplacement des produits phytosanitaires conventionnels par des solutions naturelles sur les rendements agricoles européens, le coût de son remplacement pour notre alimentation et l'impact pour notre autonomie alimentaire.
Je vous remercie.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Madame. And now ECR AG, Carlo Fidanza is not there, but Bert-Jan Ruissen. Please, Bert.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel, voorzitter, en dank aan de verschillende panelleden voor hun uitstekende bijdrage. De Omnibusverordening biedt wat ons betreft zeker interessante voorstellen om de problemen met de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen aan te pakken. Denk onder andere aan de vereenvoudiging van de regels rondom de toelating van groene middelen, biocontrolemiddelen. Ik denk ook aan de risicogebaseerde aanpak bij de herbeoordeling van middelen. Moet ik zeggen dat ik de bezwaren die in het vorige forum zijn geuit tegen die risicogebaseerde aanpak eerlijk gezegd niet begrijp, want ik denk nou juist dat die risicogebaseerde aanpak ons enorm gaat helpen om capaciteit vrij te spelen voor de toelating van nieuwe middelen.
Voor wat betreft die herbeoordeling, daar zou ik een vraag over willen stellen. Het is nu zo voorgesteld door de Commissie dat die risicogebaseerde aanpak die gaat gelden voor actieve stoffen. Maar als het gaat over de middelen, de gewasbeschermingsmiddelen waar die actieve stoffen in gebruikt worden, daarvoor blijft gelden voor die middelen dat de nationale autoriteiten wel degelijk nog iedere keer periodiek tot een herbeoordeling moeten overgaan. Dat lijkt me best ingewikkeld en daarom mijn vraag: zou die risicogebaseerde aanpak, zouden we die ook niet moeten toepassen op de toelating van de middelen in plaats van alleen maar op de toelating van actieve stoffen? En nog een laatste punt, voorzitter.
Ja, wij hebben ook onze zorgen over de beschikbaarheid van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen. Er moet toch een voldoende breed pakket beschikbaar blijven, zeker ook om die precisielandbouw enzo vorm te kunnen geven. Zou het een idee zijn om te gaan werken met regelmatige rapportages, misschien verplichte rapportages, om vroegtijdig problemen met wegvallende middelen om die in kaart te kunnen brengen om op die manier ook, nou ja, misschien prikkels in te bouwen om sneller te gaan zoeken naar alternatieven. Dank u.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Madam Chair, and many thanks to the panelists. My question is to Pavel Minar. Mr. Minar, you talked a lot about the lack of capacity, which I'm sitting over here in the center. Lack of capacity. And I fully agree, that's a huge problem.
That's one of the reasons why it takes so long before applications are being checked and granted. The executive director of EFSA talked about roughly 50 people, 50 FTE that was necessary in order to solve that problem. Now 50 people doesn't sound like a huge problem for the whole European Union to solve. Now we're setting up with this omnibus a huge, huge, huge deregulation process. But if we can also solve the problem by adding 50 staff people to EFSA.
In addition, we should also look at less control or not less control but less bureaucracy, especially on biocontrol systems. But do you think that the executive director is right and that we should go along that way in order to solve the biggest problem that we're trying to solve here?
Benoit Cassart
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Dans en ce qui me concerne, je voudrais juste souligner l'intervention de Monsieur Benoît qui dit quand même, parce que évidemment il y a une volonté générale d'aller vers moins de phytos, c'est une évidence. Il y a une volonté générale et c'est une bonne chose de s'appuyer sur des preuves scientifiques. Mais je crois qu'il est aussi nécessaire de tenir compte de tous les aspects et rappeler comme cela a été fait que les produits phytos sont des médicaments qui permettent de soigner les plantes, de les rendre saines et d'ainsi éviter au consommateur de manger des plantes qui peuvent être malades et qui peuvent avoir des conséquences sur la santé humaine, c'est important. Et montrer aussi que quand on veut assurer la nourriture d'une population qui est en croissance constante, dois-je rappeler que la population mondiale a triplé au cours de ces 80 dernières années, eh bien grâce aux produits phytos on peut éviter des épidémies comme celles que l'on a connues avec le mildiou de la pomme de terre qui a créé de la famine.
Donc aujourd'hui on l'a vu au travers des différentes interventions, nous avons besoin de positions équilibrées et je remercie Monsieur Benoît d'avoir rappelé la face positive aussi des produits phytos qui ne sont rien d'autre que des médicaments pour les plantes. Merci.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much, Chair, and also to the panelists. So I think we have clearly established what is needed. We need sustainable products as soon as possible on the market and harmful products as soon as possible off the market. But then we have those two issues: the availability of alternatives and the workload. But just like some of my colleagues here mentioned, we cannot deregulate all the safety procedures that we have to fix a workload issue because it's so much more than this.
We're talking about public health, about our soils, about nature, etc.
And there are so many more creative ideas. So I wonder, how would you feel about these other ideas? And I have a few. First, there is the clogging of the system with incomplete files. Could we have, for example, first screening and a fast rejection of incomplete files to help speed up the application process?
Or what about the possibility for member states to discuss with applicants how to hand in their files so once they hand them in, they are more complete and they are better? And what about this possibility of a biocontrol fast lane, so that the sustainable alternatives do enter the market quicker? Last idea, could EFSA also have a bigger role in this whole process to also take off some of the workload of these national authorities? So all in all, again, let's be more creative in the solutions that we have without taking away all the safety measures that we have. That would be such a shame for our public health, etc.
Tilly Metz
Thank you for giving me the floor. Not later than this morning, I read about a study that was published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health. It revealed that 46% of the world's farmers are being poisoned by pesticides every year, and this leads to 11,000 deaths, which don't even count all the children, 84 million, working or helping in agriculture, neither the long-term health impact. Also, we know that France, Italy, and Germany recognized Parkinson as an occupational disease for farmers and agricultural workers. So this all to show how important it is to maintain the rigorous assessment.
And all these diseases caused by pesticides do also have a cost, a cost on quality of life, yes, first of all of the farmers, but also economically. And why, and also from my side, thank you for your honesty, Mr. Minář, mainly because of lack of staff. But this is really a political choice. Let's agree on that. Yet speakers here continue to argue we need to dismantle key safeguards for human and environmental health.
We know about the alternatives and integrated pest management where we can decrease 95% of the insecticides without affecting the yields. I agree with you, we need more alternatives and we need more research on healthy alternatives. But how do we boost them? Certainly not by giving unlimited authorization to toxic products. So it's all about political choices that we need to make here.
Do we continue on an insane toxic agricultural system or invest in alternatives, better for the farmers, better for the environment, better for the citizens, and also for the next generations?
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you. And the last shadow is Ivan David, ESN, ENVI and AGRI.
Ivan David
J! se t!t!m b!t pon!kud zdrcen t!m př!valem demagogie, kter! jsem tady slyšel. J! bych se chtĕl zeptat pana doktora Min!ře, jak dlouho trv! př!prava kvalifikovan!ho odborn!ka, kter! je schopen posuzovat, pod!let se na posuzov!n! tĕch l!tek, kter! maj! b!t vyhodnoceny, a jestli je tedy dostatek takov!ch pracovn!ků na trhu. A chtĕl bych se zeptat, a je to jistĕ tĕž!k! ot!zka, kdyby on s!m byl v pozici, ve kter! nen!, a sice mĕl by rozhodovac! pravomoci a přimĕřen! dostatećn! budget, jak! probl!my by tedy řešil prim!rnĕ, na co by se nejprve obr!til, jak by se snažil vyřešit ten problm, o kterm jako všichni v!me a je složit!.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you. And now Catch-the-eye, the first is Norbert Lins, you have one minute please.
Norbert Lins
Ja, vielen herzlichen Dank für die Experten, für den Vortrag. Wenn wir die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dran erinnern, die Lebenserwartung in Europa ist in den letzten 60 Jahren um über 12 Jahre gestiegen der Menschen. Das hat verschiedenste Gründe, einer der Gründe ist auch die moderne Landwirtschaft. Ich bin auch sehr dankbar dem Redner von COPA-COGECA, dass er auch nochmal die Gesundheitsseite auch des Pflanzenschutzes entsprechend erwähnt hat. Das sollten wir bei der Debatte um Umwelt, gesundheitliche Aspekte nicht vergessen.
Ich hatte eine Frage an den Herrn Minam bezüglich Zulassung. Ich habe das so verstanden, dass wir uns heute in vielen bürokratischen Verfahren befinden, dass wir uns blockieren mit Wiederzulassungsverfahren, die eigentlich nur der Formalie wegen gemacht werden, dass wir uns nicht konzentrieren können auf die wirklich wichtigen und vielleicht eben auch gefährlichen Dinge, weil wir zu wenig Kapazitäten dafür haben. Vielleicht können Sie da nochmal eingehen. Und möchte dem Herrn Widmer aus Südtirol danken, genauso stellt sich die Situation beim Obstbau in meiner Heimatregion dar. Und ich glaube, wenn man Obst und Gemüse, die besonders sensibel sind, berücksichtigt und die als besonders gesund gelten, sollte man diese Aspekte in die Diskussion auch mit einbeziehen.
Danke.
Martin Häusling
Ich muss zunächst mal die völlige Unausgewogenheit des Panels kritisieren. Es ist nur eine einzige Expertin, die hier kritische Worte findet, alle anderen sind eigentlich diejenigen, die das alles unterstützen. Also mehr Ausgewogenheit bei den Panels wäre schon gut. Und ich frage mich natürlich auch immer, wenn die Landwirtschaft redet, wenn ein Pestizid wegfällt, dann brauchen wir ein neues Pestizid. Nee, ich glaube, man muss mal über grundsätzliche Dinge reden.
Warum haben wir zum Beispiel im Getreidebau Probleme mit Ackerfuchsschwanz? Ja, weil wir viel zu enge Fruchtfolgen haben. Das kann man ändern, da brauche ich keine neue Chemie. Man kann darüber reden, dass es zum Beispiel im Unkrautbekämpfung mechanische Möglichkeiten gibt und nicht immer nur die Spritze rausgeholt werden muss. Das wird hier überhaupt nicht diskutiert.
Dass man auch Sorten anbauen kann, die resistent sind gegen Krankheiten, auch das wird nicht diskutiert. Also immer wieder geht es nur um Pestizide, anstatt mal insgesamt das System zu hinterfragen, ob wir wirklich auf dem richtigen Weg sind. Und wenn dann kritisiert wird, ja, es dauert alles so lange, Herr Minam, es sind natürlich jetzt andere Anforderungen an die Prüfung als noch vor ein paar Jahren, weil wir auch um die Risiken mehr wissen, z.B. bei Bienen. Und dann, Herr Widmer, halten Sie eigentlich ein System dauerhaft für wirklich gut, wo bei der Apfelernte 38 Mal Pestizide eingesetzt werden, was man auch in Südtirol in Sandkästen mittlerweile findet? Halten Sie das für ein System, was wir auf Dauer aufrechterhalten können?
Dario Nardella
Thank you Chair and thank you to the speakers. On simplification we agree. Minor uses are a real problem. In Italy, for example, vines, olives and fruits almost all fall into that category.
And biocontrol today is authorized more slowly than synthetic chemistry. That needs fixing. But making unlimited approval the rule and the review the exception is not procedural simplification. It's a change of system and we are doing it without an impact assessment. Periodic review is the mechanism through which we discover the risks in substances we once believed to be safe.
And let us remember that the person most exposed to plant protection products is the farmer. Here we are not protecting consumers against farmers. We are protecting farmers first. Three short questions. To Mr. Minář, how much of the delay in authorizations comes from the rules and how much from administrative capacity?
To Mr. Wiedmer, does keeping substances on the market longer after withdrawal help or worsen resistance? And enfin Monsieur Benoist, de la COPA-COGECA, soutiendrait-il que les mêmes efforts de simplification s'appliquent aussi à l'alignement des tolérances à l'importation? Thank you.
Christine Singer
Ja, vielen Dank für die Vorträge. Der Berichtsentwurf des Food and Feed Omnibus bietet uns ja die Grundlage, praxisnäher zu gestalten. Ein Punkt, der mir besonders wichtig wäre, wären die sogenannten Minor Uses. Gerade bei kleineren Kulturen, etwa im Obst- und Gemüsebau, fehlen ja auch oft geeignete Pflanzenschutzlösungen und gleichzeitig funktioniert die gegenseitige Anerkennung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten in der Praxis nicht so, wie man sich das wünschen würde. Deshalb würde ich vorschlagen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten transparenter machen, welche Anträge bereits laufen und welche Zulassungen bestehen.
Herr Wiedmer, Sie kennen die Situation aus der Beratungspraxis in Südtirol sehr gut und Herr Minář, Sie haben die Sicht einer zuständigen Behörde dargestellt. Wäre ein systematischer Informationsaustausch aus Ihrer Sicht hilfreich und worauf müsste man da besonders achten? Dankeschön.
Billy Kelleher
Thank you, colleague Ellerher.
Thank you very much. Just a few observations and maybe one or two questions. I mean, we saw the impact that the invasion of Ukraine had on food prices because of a spike in oil, gas, and fertilizer. And an issue as fundamental as food security, it's quite alarming that we're sitting discussing the issue of workload constraints and capacity constraints in the authorization systems for plant product protection products. And in view of the technological advances and the scientific advances in recent years, and we knowing that some products are harmful and still on the market, and yet we are in a state of paralysis when it comes to assessing new products and their impact and authorization.
And clearly, if we are to be honest to ourselves, the area where we need to be investing most in is to ensure that when products are developed by companies, by academia and others, that we have an efficient system of assessing their efficacy and their efficiency. And without that, we really are doing a huge disservice to farmers, to those that consume the products, knowing that we have to continue to authorize emergency authorizations because we don't have replacement products because we can't assess them in time. And that really is a breach of trust between the regulators and consumers. And if we are to do anything in this committee, it should be to insist that there is a broad increase in capacity and workload constraints to allow for fast, efficient assessment of products and authorization where suitable.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And colleague Nordqvist. He's okay, he's not there. So in this case, let's go back to our experts. And I'm sorry, you have really ten minutes to get through it, means maximum three, three and a half minutes each.
I know that you get a lot of questions, but please try to be as brief as possible. Thank you. So who wants to start? I don't know.
Okay.
Pavel Minář
Děkuji za slovo. Já se budu snažit ty dotazy dát dohromady. Takže EFSA. Co se týče spolupráce s EFSou, já si myslím, že jsme nezaznamenali, alespoň v České republice, nějaké problémy s EFSou. Je naše komunikace vcelku dobrá.
Snad bych k tomu řekl to, že ten postup nevypadá jenom tak, že členská země udělá určité hodnocení, předá jej EFSe a EFSA potom už sama provádí další kroky. Velmi často dochází k tomu, že EFSA žádá členskou zemi o nějaké dopracování, zlepšení, o nějaké úpravy nebo doplnění, takže ten případ se ještě může stát předmětem komunikace mezi EFSou a členskou zemí a není úplně jednoduché vždycky rozlišit, kde vzniká nějaké zpoždění. Někdy je to někde mezi tou členskou zemí a EFSou. Co se týče zvýšení počtu lidí, které zmiňovala EFSA, určitě EFSA čelí podobným problémům jako my, to znamená stálému nárůstu objemu práce, takže já bych sám určitě podpořil zvýšení kapacity EFSA, nehledě na to, že Omnibus navrhuje některé úkoly přesunout na EFSu a určitě na to je potřeba zase nějaká kapacita. Jak dlouho trvá příprava odborníka?
No, souvisí to s těmi novými poznatky, stále déle. Řekl bych, že v průměru, když si vezmu třeba experta na ekotoxikologii, tak dejme tomu, že po několika měsících je schopen provádět nějaké základní hodnocení pod dozorem svého školitele a můj odhad je, že tak po třech letech zhruba se stává samostatným pracovníkem, který je schopen potom provádět školení ostatních, ale je to v uvozovkách, protože aspoň náš kolektiv spolupracuje na složitějších případech, takže ten člověk nepracuje samostatně a vlastně se školí celou tu dobu, kterou provádí to dané hodnocení. Navíc musí existovat nějaký harmonický postup mezi nimi. Doplnil bych, že tady několikrát bylo zmíněno to neomezené schválení účinných látek. Především ten návrh Komise to neomezené schválení navrhuje pouze pro některé látky, ne pro všechny.
Zdálo se v té debatě, že je to snad navrhováno pro všechny. Je to navrhováno pro ty, které nejsou mezi kategoriemi, které mají být nahrazeny a neplatí to pro látky, které v průběhu hodnocení byly doprovázeny nějakými zjištěními, která vedou k omezení té doby.
Snížení administrativní zátěže, samozřejmě, že se snažíme snižovat administrativní zátěž průběžně, jinak bychom ani nebyli schopni tu práci zvládat. V České republice musím říct, že prodlevy máme relativně malé, ale já jsem mluvil hlavně o trvalém nárůstu té činnosti. To znamená, ten vědecký vývoj nezůstane na tom dnešním stavu, ale bude nadále otvírat další kapitoly, které budeme muset hodnotit, další poznatky a dá se očekávat, že v dalších letech dojde opět k nárůstu činnosti. Určitě jsem pro jakékoliv zjednodušení těch administrativních postupů a zonálního systému například u povolování přípravků, ale to všechno vyžaduje legislativní změny. V současné době si myslím, že jsme došli jaksi na limity toho, co je možné.
Děkuji.
Thank you. And now colleague Benoît, Mr. Benoît.
Cédric Benoist
Oui, merci. Ça va être assez complexe, il y a eu beaucoup de questions, tout s'entremêle. Pour répondre, je ne suis pas, je dirais, accro aux produits phytosanitaires. J'ai cru comprendre qu'on disait que je ne parlais que de produits phytosanitaires. Sur mon exploitation, je l'ai dit au début de mon intervention, on a une approche assez globale entre parfois des méthodes agronomiques, de la rotation, des pratiques de travail du sol.
Mais il faut comprendre aussi que les agriculteurs, ils sont dans un cadre financier contraint, qu'aujourd'hui l'acceptation du citoyen à payer son alimentation, elle est de plus en plus faible, que l'alimentation est aussi la variable d'ajustement des ménages et que donc on a une pression assez forte sur les agriculteurs en termes de rentabilité, de prix des produits. Et dès qu'on est un peu plus vertueux d'un point de vue environnemental, bah ça se paye, il faut le payer. Et moi en tant qu'agriculteur aujourd'hui, à travers la mesure d'ajustement carbone aux frontières qui est appliquée sur les engrais, je paye mes engrais plus cher parce que mes engrais devraient être un peu plus décarbonés et donc l'Union européenne, vous avez voté une mesure d'ajustement carbone aux frontières. Donc ça fait le lien avec une question qui a été posée tout à l'heure sur les importations. Il y a des bonnes idées mais qui dans la pratique, dans la mise en place, sont très compliquées à mettre.
C'était dit tout à l'heure, il n'y a rien de plus ressemblant qu'un cristal de sucre à un autre cristal de sucre parce que le cristal de sucre il est pur et donc que votre sucre vienne du Brésil, des États-Unis ou de je ne sais où d'Europe, les cristaux de sucre se ressemblent tous. Donc mettre des barrières, je dirais, sanitaires à l'importation, c'est quand même assez compliqué sur ce critère-là d'utilisation des produits phytosanitaires. Je ne dis pas qu'on est contre, mais la mise en place, ça me paraîtrait assez compliqué. Il y a eu une question aussi sur le renouvellement des matières actives. Alors on est clair là-dessus, il y avait certaines matières actives qui ne devaient pas être renouvelées parce qu'il y avait des forts grammages de matières actives à l'hectare.
Moi j'ai utilisé une matière active qui s'appelait l'isoproturon qu'on utilisait à 1,5 kg hectare. Aujourd'hui j'utilise des matières actives à 20 grammes, pardon, à l'hectare. Par contre, quand plus aucun produit n'est homologué, ça doit quand même poser question. Pourquoi on arrive à ne plus homologuer de produits dans l'Union européenne alors qu'à l'extérieur de l'Union européenne on arrive à homologuer certains produits ? J'ai l'impression que l'Union européenne, de par son système, se bloque un peu et qu'on n'est plus assez attractif en fait pour les sociétés de produits phytosanitaires.
Voilà. Si j'avais un message à faire passer, c'est qu'il faut avoir une approche globale de l'agriculture. Et moi je suis certain que demain, et je l'ai dit au début, avec la génétique, avec la robotique, il faut donner les moyens aux agriculteurs d'ouvrir la troisième voie de l'agriculture. Je n'oppose pas l'agriculture biologique au conventionnel, mais il y aura certainement une agriculture qui va se transformer dans les dix prochaines années au niveau européen. Merci.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And the last, Robert Weidmer. I am not sure, I hope that he is online with us. Yes. Please.
Robert Wiedmer
Also grundsätzlich muss man sagen, der Druck durch die Schädlinge nimmt zu. Ich hätte auch eine Folie des Schreckens mitnehmen können. Wir haben in den letzten 20 Jahren ungefähr zwischen 10 und 15 neue Schädlinge und Krankheiten im Obst- und Weinbau hier in Südtirol bekommen. Wir sind von der Produktion her unter Druck, weil immer wieder was Neues kommt. Und auch was soll sich denn dann ändern?
Wir Landwirte sind natürlich auch interessiert, was auch die Vorredner schon gesagt haben, wir möchten auch sichere Pflanzenschutzmittel haben, die wir anwenden können. Aber im Prinzip, so wie das System aktuell funktioniert, kommt einfach nichts mehr bei uns an. Irgendwie muss es gelingen, die Zulassungen zu verschlanken, ohne ohne gewisse Mindeststandards außer Kraft zu setzen. Es wurde auch schon genannt, die gegenseitige Anerkennung funktioniert in den Zulassungszonen funktioniert nicht. Die Kleinkulturen, die auch wir betreuen einige Kleinkulturen, zum Beispiel auch Kirschen oder Aprikosen, dort sind die Lücken immens mittlerweile im Pflanzenschutz.
Bei den Hauptkulturen, vielleicht bei der Weinrebe oder beim Apfel ist es noch etwas besser. Und im Prinzip, wenn man weiterhin Wirkstoffe streicht, ohne dass Alternativen da sind, dann ist das extrem demotivierend, weil der Landwirt sich einfach nicht auch nicht wertgeschätzt fühlt in seiner Arbeit. Denn er hat die Probleme und es werden einfach keine ausreichenden Lösungen angeboten. Es wurde auch schon gesagt, dass wir natürlich nicht Pflanzenschutz ist immer die letzte die letzte Option eines Landwirts. Es gibt Kulturmaßnahmen, wir bauen auch resistente Sorten an.
Aber im Prinzip es bräuchte auch multiple Resistenzen, die es heute zum Beispiel bei den Obstkulturen nicht gibt. Denn nur wenn ich gegen eine Krankheit Resistenzen habe, dann sind noch sind noch 10, 15 andere da, die eventuell die Pflanze gerne befallen befallen möchten. Und im Prinzip wir arbeiten mit Schadensschwellen. Also die Applikation eines Pflanzenschutzmittels erfolgt, sei es im biologischen wie im integrierten Obstbau erst, wenn Schadensschwellen überschritten wurden. Aber da muss ich mich dann auch natürlich auf das Pflanzenschutzmittel verlassen können, dass es dann, wenn ich es anwende, auch wirkt.
Einen weiteren Punkt, den ich vielleicht unterstreichen möchte, ist auch der, dass sich auch in der Technik, in der Ausbringtechnik in den letzten 10, 15 Jahren extrem viele Dinge getan haben, würde ich mal sagen zum Positiven. Wir haben jetzt technische Möglichkeiten in der Ausbringung, weil natürlich der Landwirt hat auch kein Interesse, dass irgendwelche Pflanzenschutzmittel Wirkstoffe auf Nichtzielflächen landen. Das ist auch nicht sein Interesse. Aber es gilt auch zu berücksichtigen, dass wir verschiedenste Mitigationsmaßnahmen, die das Risiko minimieren können, auch auch eben umsetzen können. Und ein wichtiger Punkt vielleicht noch zum Schluss, der mir auch ein Anliegen ist, wurde auch genannt, der Austausch.
Austausch ist für uns in der Beratung elementar. Ich wir sind europaweit, weltweit vernetzt. Die Beratung steht eigentlich zum Beispiel jetzt im Obstbau relativ nah zusammen. Ich war erst kürzlich im Alten Land, ich fahre in 10 Tagen an den Bodensee, war letztes Jahr in Bozen, ich war letztes Jahr in Frankreich. Wir sind im Kontakt, versuchen uns gegenseitig auch neue Maßnahmen oder oder neue Innovationen auch zuzuspielen, um die dann auch in der Praxis umzusetzen.
Also die Vernetzung gehört gefördert, aber sie ist wie gesagt elementar für unsere Arbeit. Vielen Dank.
Veronika Vrecionová
So, I would like to thank our panelists. And now I would like to give the floor to representative of EFSA, Manuela Tiramani, who is head of pesticides. So, Madame, you have five minutes.
Manuela Tiramani
Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair, for inviting EFSA to contribute to this public hearing. The food and feed simplification package on which the European Parliament is working as co-legislator is highly relevant for EFSA. It aims to strengthen the authority by improving both effectiveness and speed of our work. EFSA very much welcomes these objectives and the proposed increase of EFSA responsibilities and staff, especially around biocontrol and pesticide biocontrol pesticides. I would like to begin my intervention highlighting that EFSA was intentionally created to remain outside the political decision-making.
Thank you.
And your role is to contribute to shaping legislation. EFSA's role is to work within that framework in an independent, science-driven and transparent way, providing the legislator the evidence needed to make informed decisions. To build on today's exchanges, I'd like to focus on the notion of speed in scientific assessment and share with you a few key figures on the current pesticide risk assessment activities. Pesticide active substances in EU are assessed in two main steps. The first one is where the applicant submits a dossier to a member state who is designated as rapporteur, which is responsible of conducting the initial analysis and preparing the first risk assessment, the so-called draft assessment report.
Second step, the file moves to EFSA, which is responsible of organizing the peer review with member states and finalizing the conclusion, the scientific conclusion, and submit it to European Commission. If we look at the timelines foreseen under Regulation 1107/2009, EFSA has 11 months to carry out its peer review, including possible clock stops if necessary. Currently, for renewals, our process lasts around 14 months on average, meaning approximately three months longer than what is foreseen under the legislation. Member states, in contrast, have a legal deadline of 12 months to prepare their first assessment, the draft assessment report. In practice, however, this stage takes around 36 months on average, twice the time foreseen under the legislation.
For several dossiers, the process takes even longer because there's some rework to be done. As a result, the joint assessment process as a whole takes on average almost two years longer than the 29 months timeframe foreseen under the legislation.
These numbers also show that on average 75% of the actual risk assessment timeline takes place with the rapporteur member state outside EFSA's control. There are several reasons related to the delays of the process at member state level, very well explained already and mentioned before my intervention. Main reason is the lack of adequate resources and this has also been publicly stated in many occasions by several actors including representatives from member state authorities, EFSA, European Commission in the REFIT evaluation of pesticide legislation. The Commission proposal already carries practical provision to support national authorities like for instance in the field of biocontrol substances and products. In parallel, together with the European Commission, initiatives are being explored to support member states' assessment capacity and help address bottlenecks in the pesticide risk assessment process.
We at EFSA remain, are and remain committed to improving efficiency within our own peer review phase and we are confident that the proposals included in the simplification package will speed up the process at EFSA level. Yet the greatest opportunity for reducing overall delays lies in streamlining member states' assessment. I'd like to conclude reiterating that we stand ready to provide to this house any additional information within our remit. And I would like to conclude thanking you again for your attention and even more for having invited us today in this hearing. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, madam, thank you very much. And next I give the floor to the Commission, Mr. Almut Bitterhoff, head of pesticides and biocides unit from DG SANTE. You have eight minutes, please.
Almut Bitterhof
Yes, thank you, Mrs. Chair, for giving me the floor and I would like to thank also the ENVI-AGRI secretariat and the rapporteurs for having organized this public hearing today. I would also like to thank all the speakers for the interesting discussions on all these very relevant topics. This all shows how important it is to keep an open dialogue with our stakeholders while the co-legislators work on the ordinary legislative procedure of the food and feed simplification package. This omnibus, Omnibus 10, as you know, was tabled as a part of a larger simplification effort which is at the core of the Commission's mandate. It will deliver a set of proposals that aim at reducing administrative burden for companies and also for national competent authorities, but will also make procedures more efficient.
It will also deliver on the important objectives of the vision for agriculture and food, which is to replenish the toolboxes of farmers, give them sufficient solutions to fight against pests, in particular by ensuring faster market access for biocontrol pesticides, in line also with the wishes of this house. The Commission's proposal sets out a balanced approach that will achieve these objectives while at the same time maintaining our very high standards of protection in the EU.
I would like to be very clear on this, this remains our highest priority and this is not negotiable. Specifically on biocontrol, the Commission includes a whole package of measures from a definition for biocontrol, priority assessments, provisional authorizations, but also a proposal for additional resources for the European Food Safety Authority, as was just mentioned by EFSA. The Commission proposal focuses and gives priority to biocontrol on purpose in order to incentivize their use and therefore the resources that are established there will also apply to biocontrol. The Commission also promotes innovation by facilitating the use of drones for applications of pesticides, as drone use can be more efficient, can be more precise and more targeted than land-based applications in some circumstances. Of course, and we have heard today the problems with a lack of substances, we are fully aware that conventional pesticides are still needed.
It became very clear this morning that we cannot at the moment only rely on biocontrol substances. Therefore, the Commission has also proposed several measures to make the transition to more sustainable products easier for farmers and in particular for those cases where there are no reasonable alternatives. And I would like to mention two examples of this, which were also hinted at this morning in the speakers' interventions. The derogation under Article 47 from the approval criteria, which already existed and was never used in the past because it had such a narrow scope, was broadened in order to make it actually possible to apply it to essential uses. This will also help reducing the reliance on emergency authorizations, as was shown this morning by Mrs. Marlein in her slide.
There is a possibility to set longer grace periods in such specific cases, but, I want to stress this, this is only also in case where there are no reasonable alternatives. The normal grace periods for all other cases remain as they are currently. And I heard this morning that it was hinted that those grace periods would be mandatory. At least in the Commission's proposal they are not mandatory. The Commission sets out maximum grace periods that Member States can set, but they don't have to.
All of these are no blank checks. This is very important. In each of these cases a careful assessment case-by-case will always be needed. Coming to the issue of unlimited approvals that we know is one of the most controversial points in the Commission's proposal. We proposed to streamline how active substances are reviewed and we propose to move from a time-bound approval system to a more risk-based approach, which would allow unlimited approvals and now, importantly, except for substances which pose concerns for human health and the environment.
Also here, it's not a blank check. It is meant to be applying only to those substances which are not of concern. This will not lower the current high level of protection, as was claimed by some speakers today, because it will refocus the efforts on those issues where most attention is needed and it will free resources for those.
We have heard from EFSA today, but also from the representative of the Czech competent authorities, that there are serious delays at Member State level, and we believe we need to tackle this as a structural problem. I would like to stress and to reassure that there will be many safeguards, there are safeguards already in the current legislation and new ones have been proposed. First of all, in our proposals, the authorizations granted by Member States will still be limited in time, they are not unlimited. Secondly, all 200 ongoing renewal procedures, 200, will be finalized. And, and I would like to elaborate a bit on this, there is a system whereby full renewal procedures will still be possible to carry out for groups of substances in a work program that will be established by Commission, Member States and in consultation with EFSA.
There was a question on this, on how the criteria for this would apply, and I would like to just clarify that in the proposal itself, we have mentioned broad criteria, for instance, when there are new safety concerns on the basis of monitoring data, or when there's new science and new technical developments. So new science will be taken into account, it's not that it will not be taken into account, I heard this several times this morning. There will also be a system of targeted reassessments, which will not be full renewal exercises, they will be targeted when new science ends up in new, for instance, guidance documents that the Commission will apply. We will be able to much quicker react to this and integrate science into our proposals. So in the end, we will be easier and quicker in implementing science than before, because before we had to wait for the next renewal cycle of 15 years to be able to implement new guidance documents.
I think this is very important to mention. Existing tools that we already had in the legislation, we had already the system that any approval can be reviewed at any time for any substance under our existing Article 21, and this will remain in place. We also have emergency measures that can be taken. Mrs. Hazekamp asked the question about what it meant for nasty substances such as chlorpyrifos, for instance, or neonicotinoids, what the new system would mean for those. Well, those were reviewed under Article 21 and Article 21 remains fully in place, so this will not change.
Maybe as a last comment, because minor uses were mentioned, the minor uses were also addressed in the proposal of the Commission, making extensions of uses easier, facilitating mutual recognitions between Member States and facilitating also the documentation for minor uses. On MRLs, I would like to react because it was mentioned this morning that this is also a quite difficult issue. The Commission has proposed in our proposal a very balanced approach, taking into account on one hand the farmers' concerns on being less competitive than third-country counterparts, but also at the other hand we have to comply with our international obligations under the WTO SPS agreement.
Therefore, the Commission's proposal has focused only on the most hazardous substances for which the principle will apply that MRLs will be lowered to the technical zero level, but not to all substances that are no longer approved in the EU. With this, I would like to conclude and would like to emphasize again that our high standards on health and environment in the EU will be maintained, that we have integrated the views of stakeholders and the evidence that we have from REFIT reports and other implementation reports into our proposal to make a consistent approach, and we believe that this strikes the right balance. Of course, we remain available for any further support or clarifications. Thank you.
Thank you, Madame. And in the end, I would like to give the floor also to Vice-Chair of ENVI Committee, my colleague Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, please, the floor is yours.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Veronika. And let me start by thanking all the experts who participated today in this hearing, including of course EFSA and European Commission representatives, and of course all the members that were so actively participating today. Earlier in his opening remarks, it was our ENVI Chair Pascal Canfin who emphasized the importance of listening to the different stakeholders, and today we have seen how important it is that we also keep on listening to science. So thank you for that. I particularly want to highlight the interventions from the scientists who clearly point to the complexity of the issue, the effect on farmers and the impact on food production, the loss of active substances approval and the rise of emergency approvals, and on the other side, the real-world effects of impacts on health and environment.
And it's clear that there is a need for balanced solutions and the need to work on an exit strategy for the most hazardous pesticides, as was stated by a few of the experts. And here I would like to welcome the authorization of 30 new biocontrols in my own member state, the Netherlands, where there are green lanes, and to learn from that from what is working in practice. And I would like to keep it to that, Chair, and hand over the floor again to you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, Gerben-Jan. And because we are a little late, I will just, and Vice-Chair, my colleague Vice-Chair told everything what I wanted to tell, I will smoothly go on to our another item because it's really, and because the issue is the same. We remain on the topic of the food and feed omnibus, and we will now proceed directly to the consideration of amendments tabled on the draft report. This report has been elaborated by ENVI-AGRI co-rapporteurs for this joint dossier, Michèle Rivasi from ECR and Herbert Dorfmann from EPP.
I would like to thank our co-rapporteurs for their work in preparing the draft report and all colleagues who have tabled more than 1,400 amendments. Today's meeting provides an opportunity for a first exchange of view on these amendments. I encourage colleagues to focus on the key political issue of simplification and to seek compromises wherever possible in order to advance this file. I now give the floor to my fellow co-chair who will invite the co-rapporteurs to present the main elements of the amendment before we proceed with this consideration. So, Gerben-Jan, the floor is again yours.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Veronika. It's a nice game of ping-pong we're playing here behind this chair's table. Yes, indeed, we have received a very
large number of amendments on the two draft reports and we'll now give the opportunity to members of our joint committee to express their views on this. And of course, firstly, we will start
with the two co-rapporteurs on the file and then we'll give the shadows and most probably also catch the eye possibility. So, Mr. Dorfmann, we start again with
you.
Herbert Dorfmann
Danke, Chair. Ja, in der Tat, wir haben zu der Ab- also im Omnibus geht es ja einmal um die Abänderung der Richtlinie und da haben wir 172 Abänderungsanträge
und 1488 bei der Verordnung. Und wir sind dabei, die durchzuarbeiten. Und natürlich würde es jetzt zu weit führen, über alle diese Abänderungsanträge etwas zu sagen.
Es gibt insgesamt sieben Abänderungsanträge, den Kommissionsvorschlag als Ganzes abzulehnen. Alle anderen beschäftigen sich mit dem Text selber, zwei Vorschläge aus der Richtlinie und der Verordnung.
Ich glaube, ich möchte nur zwei oder drei Punkte herausgreifen, die ja gerade jetzt auch in unserer öffentlichen- in unserer Anhörung besprochen worden sind. Da ist einmal die gesamte Frage Biocontrol.
Da gibt's Abänderungsanträge aus allen Fraktionen. Es geht um die Begriffsbestimmung, die vorläufige Zulassung in Artikel 30, die Prüffristen, also Artikel 11 und 37, die gegenseitige Anerkennung in den Mitgliedstaaten.
Und ich möchte dazu erinnern, dass wir hier im Agrarausschuss zumindest vor einigen Monaten erst einen Initiativbericht gemacht haben. Und ich bin- ich glaube, wir sollten Inhalte, die wir in diesem Initiativbericht genau
zu diesem Thema gemacht haben, die jetzt auch umsetzen. Also, und es ist heute auch gesagt worden in der- in der Anhörung, eine Green Line, also eine Vorzugsspur für
Biocontrol-Produkte gibt absolut Sinn und würde das System wahrscheinlich beschleunigen. Dann ist die gesamte Frage, die vielleicht vorher die schwierigste war, ich danke auch der Kommissionsvertreterin, dass sie hier Klarheit geschaffen
hat, ist die unbegrenzte- zeitlich unbegrenzte Zulassung von Produkten. Auch hier gibt es eine ganze Reihe von Abänderungsanträgen, die in verschiedenste Richtungen gehen. Ich möchte hier auch nochmals unterstreichen zu
dem, was die Vertreterin der Kommission gesagt hat, was ich voll unterstütze, dass wir hier ja nur von einer zeitlich unbegrenzten Zulassung bestimmter aktiver Substanzen reden. Die Zulassung der Produkte an und für
sich, die ja nicht Kompetenz der Europäischen Union ist, sondern Mitgliedstaaten ist, die würde auch weiterhin zeitlich beschränkt bleiben und so wie sie heute ist, aufrecht bleiben. Und ein letzter Punkt noch, und ich
glaube, der wird uns politisch beschäftigen, das ist die gesamte Frage der MRLs, also der maximalen Rückstände und der Angleichung zwischen der Europäischen Union und Drittstaaten, aus denen importiert wird.
Das Joint Research Centre der Kommission hat ja gerade eine Studie veröffentlicht, die sich genau mit diesem Thema beschäftigt. Und ich finde die Studie sehr interessant. Ich glaube persönlich auch, dass der Ansatz,
den die Kommission gewählt hat, hier für mehr Parität zwischen der Europäischen Union und Drittstaaten zu sorgen, dass das der richtige Ansatz ist.
Aber wir müssen schon auch aufpassen, dass wir uns nicht auf die eigenen Füße treten. Das heißt, wir haben große Importe zum Beispiel an Futtermitteln, Soja vor allem, wo ein solches absolutes Parität zwischen MRLs in Europa und in der und von außerhalb uns wahrscheinlich zu großen Schwierigkeiten im Import führen wird und damit letztendlich auch zur Verteuerung von Futtermitteln und Produktionskosten für die Landwirte selber in in Europa. Ich glaube, wir müssen uns das sehr konkret und sehr detailliert anschauen, aber ich halte grundsätzlich den den Ansatz, den die Kommission gewählt hat, als einen richtigen und erfolgversprechenden. Herzlichen Dank.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Mr Dorfmann. I I gave you more time than foreseen because I forgot to tell you that you had two minutes. But the next speaker, Mr Piccaro, who is online, please try to limit yourself to the the two minutes.
Michele Picaro
Sì, grazie Presidente, colleghe e colleghi, ringrazio tutti i gruppi per il lavoro svolto. Gli emendamenti presentati dimostrano un'esigenza condivisa: rendere il quadro normativo più efficiente e prevedibile senza che si arretri nella tutela della salute e dell'ambiente. Come relatore affronterò il negoziato con pragmatismo e responsabilità, partendo non dalle contrapposizioni ideologiche, ma dai dati scientifici, dai rischi concreti e dalle esigenze delle nostre filiere agricole. È proprio da questo approccio che nasce il tema della reciprocità, perché non possiamo assolutamente vietare agli agricoltori europei l'impiego di determinate sostanze e, nello stesso tempo, consentire l'ingresso di prodotti ottenuti tramite quelle stesse sostanze. Anche per questo le tolleranze all'importazione per le sostanze non più autorizzate nell'Unione Europea devono essere rigorosamente limitabili.
Naturalmente, se la modifica di un limite massimo di residui dovesse causare problemi di approvvigionamento, dovrà essere possibile un intervento mirato, proporzionato e adeguatamente motivato. La regola però deve restare chiara: stessi standard per chi produce in Europa e per chi vuole esportare nel nostro mercato. Questa non è assolutamente una chiusura, ma è equità e credibilità delle regole europee. Lo stesso equilibrio ci deve guidare sulle autorizzazioni a tempo indeterminato dei prodotti fitosanitari: meno rinnovi amministrativi ripetitivi e più risorse per i controlli realmente necessari, mantenendo la possibilità di intervenire immediatamente qualora emergano nuovi dati scientifici o segnali di rischio. Allo stesso modo, semplificare significa anche favorire un'innovazione responsabile.
Penso che l'impiego dei droni può ridurre le quantità utilizzate, la dispersione dei prodotti e l'esposizione degli operatori stessi. Tuttavia, seguendo le linee guida EFSA, tracciabilità e condizioni rigorose, ma per i prodotti a basso rischio una semplice notifica preventiva può sostituire l'autorizzazione caso per caso. Mentre il biocontrollo deve affiancare i prodotti convenzionali con procedure più rapide e comunque più proporzionate. Devono essere disponibili le alternative e devono essere efficaci ed accessibili, perché non bisogna lasciare agli agricoltori non possiamo lasciare gli agricoltori senza gli strumenti di difesa e aumentare costi e perdite produttive. Non ce lo possiamo permettere.
In definitiva dobbiamo proteggere la salute e l'ambiente ma non dobbiamo indebolire i nostri agricoltori perché un'Europa che non tutela chi produce non è più sicura e sicuramente un'Europa più debole. Grazie.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you Mr. Picaro. That brings us to the speakers on behalf of the groups. Of course we have ENVI and AGRI representative from the groups. We have scheduled for one and a half minute per MEP. So if there are two speakers for a group you both have one and a half minute.
If there's one speaker on behalf of the two committees you can even talk for three minutes. That doesn't mean that you have to fill all the minutes but then you know the rules. And we start with Stefan Köhler on behalf of EPP.
Stefan Köhler
Ja thank you chair. Das Thema Pflanzenschutz und Zulassungsverfahren erhält nicht ganz zu Unrecht die meiste Aufmerksamkeit. Mit dem Food and Feed Omnibus haben wir nun eine einmalige Chance die Pflanzenschutzmittelzulassungsverfahren vom Kopf auf die Füße zu stellen. Zeitlich unbegrenzte Zulassung und gezielte Prüfverfahren sofern sich die Forschungslage ändern sollte. Der Berichtsentwurf der Kollegen Dorfmann und Picaro denken diesen Ansatz folgerichtig weiter.
Für mich kann das allerdings nur der Auftakt sein. Dementsprechend habe ich bei meinen Änderungsanträgen den Weg nach vorn eingeschlagen. Die Basis für einen gut bestückten Werkzeugkasten ist da. Der Kasten und die Instrumente sind auf dem Tisch. Jetzt muss alles zusammengefügt werden damit wir Landwirte es endlich in die Hände und auf die Kulturen bekommen.
Ich wünsche dem Berichterstattern für die weitere Verhandlung viel Erfolg und danke schon für die geleistete Arbeit. Vielen Dank.
Christophe Clergeau
Thank you Mr. Köhler. Then we move to the S&D Christophe Clergeau.
Merci Monsieur le Président Madame la Présidente je parlerai en français pour l'ensemble du groupe et donc les deux comités. La première chose c'est que je crois qu'indépendamment de la législation nous devons faire quelque chose ensemble pour traiter la question des moyens de l'EFSA et des autorités nationales parce que ce n'est pas la solution mais nous l'avons encore entendu cet après-midi c'est une partie de la solution. Ensuite nous avons ce texte législatif. Nous nous ne voulons pas le bloquer nous ne voulons pas le faire dérailler nous voulons le faire aboutir parce qu'il est très important d'aboutir sur le biocontrôle d'aboutir sur les limites résidus de pesticides et de trouver des solutions nouvelles pour les agriculteurs respectueuses de la santé et de l'environnement. Par contre vous le savez nous avons un désaccord majeur sur la question des modalités des autorisations de mise sur le marché des pesticides et sur la question des autorisations illimitées.
Ce désaccord est celui de l'ensemble du groupe socialiste. Vous avez entendu Dario Nardella tout à l'heure. Nous pouvons vous référer à la lettre envoyée par Iratxe García Pérez avec moi-même Tiemo Wölken et Dario Nardella en novembre pour protester contre la version initiale du draft du texte de la Commission que la Commission a dû ensuite changer et qui refusait tout principe d'autorisation limitée sans différenciation en fonction des risques et nous considérons que le texte actuel ne répond pas à notre demande. La Commission devrait d'ailleurs réaliser que personne ne soutient sa proposition. Personne.
Le Conseil ne la soutient pas et il y a ici ceux qui veulent aller plus loin et ceux qui veulent aller moins loin. Donc la question que l'on doit se poser collectivement c'est soit nous transformons ce Parlement en guerre de tranchées sur la question des autorisations illimitées soit nous nous pouvons nous nous posons au Parlement la question de ce que de peut être le point d'aboutissement de l'ensemble du processus législatif et ce que pourrait être y compris le point d'aboutissement d'un compromis avec le Conseil.
Et quand le Conseil nous dit que la bonne piste à suivre, c'est peut-être de travailler sur les autorisations illimitées pour les produits low risk, mais d'y renoncer pour les autres produits, c'est quelque chose que nous devons prendre en compte et sur lequel nous devons travailler. Donc en résumé, soit nous perdons du temps à une bataille politique entre des postures, soit nous essayons de construire ensemble des compromis acceptables. Les deux co-rapporteurs ont une responsabilité très importante dans le choix du chemin et à chaque groupe également de faire preuve de responsabilité.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you. Next speaker on behalf of the Patriots is Anne-Sophie Frigout.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
Chers collègues, à la lecture des amendements, plusieurs lignes parfois irréconciliables se dessinent sur ce texte crucial pour ceux qui travaillent chaque jour pour nous nourrir et assurer notre sécurité alimentaire. D'un côté, les décroissantistes, fidèlement accrochés au totem du Green Deal, dont ils n'ont tiré aucune leçon puisque avec eux, le réel doit toujours se plier à l'idéologie. Ils continuent à défendre l'interdiction progressive des produits phytosanitaires. Mais quel drôle de monde où les hommes et les animaux auraient le droit à la chimie pour se soigner, mais pas les plantes. Cette ligne est même de plus en plus menaçante lorsqu'elle ose utiliser les termes d'empoisonneurs et d'empoisonnés pour qualifier des agriculteurs qui travaillent dur pour remplir nos assiettes.
Ensuite, vous avez la ligne centriste qui croit encore pouvoir négocier avec les écologistes au risque de vider ce texte de sa portée. Rappelons-le, l'Europe n'autorise quasiment plus de substances et deux cents d'entre elles sont en attente de renouvellement. Ce texte ne servira à rien si l'on continue à appliquer des dates d'expiration à des substances jugées sûres et réévaluables dès que le moindre doute subsiste. Enfin, certains convoquent les règles de l'OMC pour s'opposer à nos propositions de réciprocité des normes en matière de phytosanitaires. Sachez que ce sera aussi le cas pour la proposition beaucoup plus limitée de la Commission qui ne souhaite abaisser les LMR que pour les substances les plus dangereuses.
Et surtout, si nous avions toujours suivi à la lettre les décisions de l'OMC, l'Union européenne aurait dû rouvrir son marché au bœuf traité aux hormones de croissance. Alors oui, chers collègues, nos agriculteurs attendent des actes, il y a urgence, soyons à la hauteur.
Carlo Fidanza
Sì, grazie Presidente, e ringrazio anch'io i colleghi relatori. Abbiamo presentato un pacchetto di emendamenti su questa proposta dell'Omnibus Food and Feed. Riteniamo condivisibile l'obiettivo della Commissione di semplificare e modernizzare il quadro normativo, riducendo burocrazia e costi senza compromettere gli elevati standard europei. Accogliamo con favore in particolare le procedure più rapide previste per i biopesticidi e le sostanze a basso rischio, rinnovi più mirati, maggiore armonizzazione e un migliore riconoscimento reciproco tra gli Stati membri. È una direzione che può favorire innovazione e competitività lungo tutta la filiera.
Proprio per questo dobbiamo affrontare con decisione il nodo ancora aperto dei livelli massimi di residui. La nostra posizione è chiara: per le sostanze il cui utilizzo è vietato nell'Unione europea, dobbiamo arrivare a MRL pari a zero anche per i prodotti importati. Non possiamo creare tolleranze all'importazione che finiscano per consentire sul mercato europeo ciò che vietiamo ai nostri produttori.
E del resto quello che sta avvenendo proprio in queste ore con il Brasile ci dimostra quanto sia importante attuare la reciprocità concretamente e non declamarla in maniera astratta. Gli agricoltori europei stanno sostenendo costi e oneri sempre maggiori per rispettare i nostri standard. Non possiamo quindi metterli in concorrenza con prodotti ottenuti secondo regole che in Europa non sarebbero accettabili. Parallelamente, il ritiro progressivo delle sostanze attive deve essere sempre accompagnato da alternative efficaci, tecnicamente praticabili, economicamente sostenibili per i nostri agricoltori. Questa deve essere la vera semplificazione: meno burocrazia, più innovazione e condizioni eque per chi produce in Europa.
Benoit Cassart
Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Au niveau du groupe Renew, notre objectif est double : redonner de la compétitivité à nos agriculteurs tout en maintenant des standards élevés de santé humaine et d'environnement. Le groupe Renew défend donc une approche qui se veut pragmatique. Nous souhaitons d'abord accélérer la mise sur le marché des biocontrôles et des substances à faible risque afin de donner aux agriculteurs un plus large éventail d'alternatives. Les périodes d'évaluation sont en effet actuellement trop longues.
Nous ne pouvons pas continuer à réduire continuellement la boîte à outils des agriculteurs sans leur offrir de solutions alternatives. Nous souhaitons également favoriser le développement de l'agriculture de précision en facilitant l'utilisation des drones. Cette technologie permet de mieux cibler les interventions et de réduire les quantités de produits phytos utilisés, ce qui est à la fois bénéfique pour l'environnement et nos agriculteurs. L'omnibus doit donc permettre de lever les barrières administratives à leur utilisation. Enfin, il est également nécessaire de renforcer la compétitivité de nos agriculteurs en contrôlant mieux les produits que nous importons et en évitant que les produits phytosanitaires interdits en Europe ne reviennent via des produits agricoles importés.
Si nous voulons relancer l'agriculture européenne, nous devons faire preuve d'une plus grande cohérence entre nos politiques internes et externes. À nouveau, nous proposons une approche pragmatique et différenciée selon que les produits soient destinés à l'alimentation humaine ou animale afin d'éviter toute déstabilisation majeure de la chaîne de valeur. Au nom du groupe Renew, je tiens à remercier une nouvelle fois les co-rapporteurs pour leur projet de rapport. J'espère que nous pourrons avoir une approche constructive et aboutir à un texte pragmatique permettant de concilier à la fois les objectifs agricoles, environnementaux et de santé humaine. Je vous remercie.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Benoît. Then I hand over the floor to myself on behalf of Renew ENVI. And I'll start by saying that agriculture is extremely important because without agriculture we have no food. But nature is also extremely important because without nature we have no agriculture and without agriculture we have no food. So if you see it like that, the question is relatively simple, but we all know that it's not that simple and that we have a quite polarized debate here and that the big challenge is to find a balanced approach.
Renew wants to build these bridges. We want science to lead simplification and not simplification to lead science. And that means giving flexibility to green and low-risk alternatives while maintaining a robust precautionary approach. And we as members of Parliament will come to a political conclusions, but people will be watching our deliberations via the livestream. And they might not have a special interest in either agriculture or nature other than just their own health.
And they want to know whether the environment and by extension their own health will be put at risk if we deregulate pesticides, if we open the door to sweeping unlimited approvals of chemicals. And the science is clear. It tells us this will indeed put our public health at risk. When we make it easier to use more chemicals while providing less oversight, we put nature at risk and potentially also the health of farmers and citizens living near an agricultural land. And people are rightly concerned.
They understand very well what is going on. And after what has been discussed here today, they have every reason to be even more concerned. So let us make sure that this process is reconciled not only with science, nature and agriculture, but also with what people want. The overwhelming majority of Europeans want their health and ecosystems to be properly protected from the most dangerous pesticides. And I hope we together as democratic forces in this house can work together to achieve that.
So I gave myself 30 seconds more and I excuse myself for that, but now we can move on to the next speaker. We have two speakers from the Greens and we start with Anja Strolenberg.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much, chair. Alright, yes, pesticides. I think it is super clear what we have to do again to make sure that sustainable alternatives get on the market as soon as possible and that we get rid of the harmful ones to protect water, soils, our health, farmers, etc. And I feel a bit like a broken record because I will talk about biocontrol again. But I really want to urge the rapporteurs to focus on this as the future of crop protection.
And I know that points are taken up in the proposal, but I think a lot more can be done. So the amendments that we handed in focus on a strong definition of biocontrol, a priority lane with dedicated funding, a one-zone and provisional authorization, sorry, support EFSA's intention to help SMEs and startups with submission of their files and, also very important, development of a standalone legislative framework for biocontrol because the current framework is still focused on conventional pesticide. Then I do want to say something about safeguards for environment and health because I am afraid that the proposal of the Commission and especially of the rapporteurs will take those safeguards away and I think it is not something that is needed. There are so many other possibilities that we have. Reapproval for conventional pesticides is something that we have to keep in.
Then something that we haven't discussed yet today, but it's the 1829 on precision fermentation. Because what I saw in the amendments disappointed me much because it's about streamlining regulation on precision fermentation but what is happening in most amendments is that to streamline of precision fermentation to comply with GMO legislation, but then novel food is taken out with all the amendments. And I wonder why. Because I cannot think of a reasonable argument to do this except for an ideological one. This is really the only argument.
Why would you streamline it for everything except for innovation, for novel food? So to the rapporteur who is here present, Dorfmann, I wonder what you will do. I hope you won't go along with this ideological debate and will also advocate for food innovation. So all in all, we have tabled amendments that really have a clear science-based framework and that focus on innovation and safety for all.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you. Next speaker on behalf of the Greens is Tilly Metz.
Tilly Metz
Yeah, thank you very much. First of all, I want to react to my colleague from the far right. I think we cannot every time just let they say what they want and which is not really what is the reality. When she speak there are lessons to take from the Green Deal, this is a joke. The Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy was not implemented, so there is no lesson to take out of it.
That is the first remark I would make. She left, but nevertheless I go on. The second thing she said, she compared pesticides with medication for humans. First of all, there is a question: are the plants ill, or are our ecosystem pushed to their limits, or is it because of climate change also that we have more pests? So the comparison is also in my eyes, in our eyes, quite nonsense.
But then, coming to our amendments, every scientific study after the other conclude that the Omnibus package is a bad proposal. So even the Commission's own consultation, if you look also what the citizens said, they support that we reduce pesticide. Now the two co-rapporteurs, for the moment at least, make this proposal even worse. From the Greens/EFA, we tabled really a package of amendments and I will shortly make five points that are very important for us. First of all, the periodic renewals are fundamental safeguards.
And as it was already said, there are other ways to deal with a backlog of application. And we need to do, and it was said also by Anna, to ensure a swift uptake on truly safe biocontrol products. We also want to ensure that toxic products are taken off the market as soon as possible. And of course, we want that the existing safeguards under Article 4.7, the derogation, are used as genuine exception. And then finally, the MRLs, we strengthen the provision for substances banned in the EU, they should be automatically set to zero.
So to conclude, I continue, I hope, I try at least, I want to be optimistic. So if there is willingness, I know we can find a common ground. And but good proposals take time. So we think it is unrealistic, I would even say undemocratic, to believe that we can negotiate almost 1,500 amendments in less than a month. So we need to slow down the tempo, that is a demand, a call to the rapporteurs.
And please listen to the citizens and to the scientists. Thank you.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Mrs. Metz. You were the final speaker on behalf of the groups because the Left and ESN have no people in the room. So that means that we move to catch-the-eye and then the AGRI chair is taking over again.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. So let's start with catch-the-eye, but we have only one member who want to take the floor, Carmen Crespo Díaz. So the floor is yours.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Gracias, presidenta. Estamos muy de acuerdo con este texto y hemos presentado numerosas enmiendas en este sentido. Primero, apostar por la agricultura de precisión donde los drones se deben de reconocer como herramienta agrícola y no someterse automáticamente a la aplicación aérea convencional y armonizar las reglas que permitan reducir los plazos. En cuanto a los fitosanitarios, reconocimiento mutuo real, porque no puede haber agricultores europeos compitiendo entre sí con herramientas distintas en los mismos cultivos. Autorizaciones ágiles, autorizaciones provisionales de hasta cinco años con las garantías necesarias y la ciencia y la investigación.
Para retirar sustancias debe de estudiarse con medidas de mitigación y periodos de gracia, porque si no no estamos dando garantías. Impulsar el control biológico, por supuesto, y también controlar todo lo que en los acuerdos comerciales, a través de un departamento de control de la Unión Europea que coordine los puertos andaluces para que se cumplan los mismos estándares los productos que se importan de los estándares europeos.
Gracias.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Carmen, and now I would like to give the floor to the Commission for replies. You have five minutes, Madame Bittenhorf.
Almut Bitterhof
Yes, thank you, Mrs. Chair. Allow me to also express my sincere gratitude to the co-rapporteurs and all the MEPs that tabled amendments to the draft report on the food and feed simplification package. The many amendments, almost 1,500, show the keen engagement of all members of the two committees and the deep interest in this important file. The Commission underscores its commitment to a balanced approach that streamlines regulatory processes while upholding the EU's rigorous food safety standards. Having examined the amendments, and also as confirmed today by the interventions of the speakers, we see that on some aspects of the Commission's proposal there is already quite broad agreement in principle among different political groups, while on others opinions are extremely diverse.
This is the case particularly in the area of pesticides. We regrettably saw that some of the amendments that were tabled rejected the entire omnibus proposal, both for the directives and also for the regulation, due to the lack of an impact assessment. In that respect, I would like to clarify that the food and feed simplification package builds on a substantial evidence base. There were evaluations of legislation, implementing reports and the like, and there were many discussions beforehand with the Commission and its normal stakeholders. The staff working document clearly explains the proposed measures, presents the underlying evidence and analysis and the stakeholders' views.
Just to give you some figures, in the call for evidence we received about 6,000 replies from stakeholders and in the following feedback mechanism almost 1,000. Members of this House and the Council have received a few weeks ago our summary of this. I'd like to react on some of the most controversial issues. I try to be brief. On plant protection products, I would like to stress once again that the change from the current time-bound approval system to a more risk-based approach will not lead to a lowered level of protection.
On the contrary, it'll make the existing approval system more efficient by targeting the resources, the scarce resources of the member states to substances where it matters most. And I mentioned before the several safeguards that were existing and have been introduced. As regards the broadened scope of Article 4(7), again, it will make it possible to apply this in practice, but there are also existing limitations to only where there is a serious risk to plant health or plant production and if there are no reasonable alternatives. We are concerned about the proposals on further agro-economic considerations that should be introduced. This would substantially change the objectives of the legislation and in our view exceeds the scope of the simplification exercise.
Commission is also concerned as regards the proposed amendments on emergency authorizations. They go well beyond the Commission's proposal. Both the proposals for automatic recognition of emergency authorizations by Member States within a zone. This running counter to using them restrictively and only where really needed. And even more so we are concerned about the proposal to authorize emergency authorizations for neonicotinoids again.
The latter is not only not in line with the ruling of the European Court of Justice but it would also be extremely bad news for the protection of bees that was always supported by this house. Another concern relates to the proposal to allow for the export of treated seeds with non-authorized pesticides. Such a permit of exports would undermine the EU plant protection product authorization system which is designed to ensure that specific uses are always properly assessed before authorizations are given. In our view this would raise serious safety legal and enforcement concerns. I already made a comment on maximum residue levels previously.
We believe that lowering the maximum residue levels to zero for all non-approved substances would pose problems in WTO. This goes also well beyond our proposal. Regarding amendments proposed on feed additives intended for export to third countries the Commission is open to this provided that the objectives of the legislation continue to be met. And finally on official controls the Commission acknowledges legitimate concerns about food safety fraud prevention and public confidence in the EU's control system. We are however of the view that controls should be targeted and remain risk-based as is already foreseen in the current official control regulation.
Applying a minimum threshold for the frequency to all consignments that are subjected to mandatory controls at border control posts would significantly increase the administrative and economic burden on Member States and also on operators. Having said all that the Commission stands ready to offer you further clarifications or any additional information you may need and we are looking forward to a constructive collaboration with the Parliament on this important matter. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you Madam and now go back to our co-rapporteur Herbert Dorfmann if you want to take the floor.
Herbert Dorfmann
No nothing to add. Only like to thank the Commission for the explanation and I be going to start now to formulate compromises and I really hope that with the shadow rapporteurs of both committees we can reach to an feasible and compromises which will have a majority in the house. Thank you very much.
Thank you Herbert so we are in the end and maybe I ask again Jan Huitema if you want to to remark something at the end.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Well I can be very brief as well. Maybe maybe just one addition that most people talked about pesticides today but the omnibus is much more comprehensive than that.
We've seen in past omnibuses that they're huge files with a lot of work. So I hope we can have a very constructive cooperation between the two committees and all the two rapporteurs and all the shadows to find a solution in this difficult file, as Herbert Dorfmann was already emphasizing. So I'll leave it to that and I'll thank you, Veronika, for not just for this part of today, but the whole hearing as well for a very good cooperation between ENVI and AGRI.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. I also thank you really a lot for very good cooperation. And in the end, let me only remark to remind you about our timetable. Deadline for amendments is July, 13th of July. Vote in ENVI and AGRI will be 5th of October.
And vote in plenary, we expect the October, at the second plenary session. Thank you, colleagues. And just now, I would like only to remind my colleagues from AGRI that we will see here again tomorrow morning at 9:00. So have a nice evening. Thank you very much.
So thank you.