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
 Index 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2016/0084(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0270/2017

Texts tabled :

A8-0270/2017

Debates :

PV 23/10/2017 - 17
CRE 23/10/2017 - 17

Votes :

PV 24/10/2017 - 5.7
CRE 24/10/2017 - 4.7

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2017)0392

Debates
Monday, 23 October 2017 - Strasbourg Provisional edition

17. CE marked fertilising products (debate)
Video of the speeches
PV
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Dalton (ECR ). – Mr President, we welcome much of this report and the modernisation of the current regulation, but the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has simply gone too far on cadmium levels, which they had competence on. Their proposal to lower the amount of cadmium fertilisers to just 40 mg in three years and then just 20 mg in nine years goes against scientific evidence and would have a dramatic effect on our ability to produce food. Our farmers need affordable and high—quality fertilisers. They directly increase the productivity of many crops. The Commission proposed 60 mg, even though they had evidence that 80 mg would do the job and lead to a reduction in the accumulation of cadmium in the soil.

Fertilisers, we should also remember, are only one reason that cadmium can end up in the soil and in diet: alone, they don’t solve the problem. The EU imports 85% of fertilisers, and most of those inputs will not meet the 60 mg proposal, let alone the 40 mg target or the 20 mg target down the line. So, if this report goes through, our farmers will face massive cost increases, which will make our food even more expensive. I therefore urge colleagues to support the amendments tabled by the ECR Group, which sets a maximum level at 80 mg.

 
Last updated: 10 November 2017Legal notice