Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Full text 
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 - Strasbourg Revised edition

Objection pursuant to Rule 106: renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate (B8-0439/2016)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR), in writing. ‒ As a firm proponent of evidence-based policy-making in the regulation of agricultural technologies, I welcome Parliament’s decision to reject calls to ban glyphosate. The authorisations of active substances are based on the scientific evaluation of a rapporteur Member State and EFSA. This process views glyphosate to be safe, when used appropriately, and concludes that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Ignoring this advice would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the EU’s entire risk assessment system.

However, I still consider that the basis for this objection resolution remains fundamentally flawed. It is incorrect to argue that the Commission’s implementing measure fails to ensure a high level of protection and is incompatible with Regulation 1107/2009. All active substances authorised for use undergo a comprehensive assessment to ensure they pose no unacceptable risk. Moreover, the resolution misuses the precautionary principle, dismisses the existing regulatory framework for the sustainable use of pesticides and attempts to forge a link between glyphosate and potential endocrine disrupting properties, despite both EFSA and the USEPA concluding that there is no evidence of such effect.

For these reasons I cannot support the resolution.

Legal notice