Ausführliche Sitzungsberichte

Montag, 6. Juni 2022 - Straßburg

19. Fragestunde (Kommission) Den Einsatz von Pestiziden senken und den Verbraucherschutz stärken

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission kyselytunti (työjärjestyksen 137 artikla).

Haluan toivottaa tänne juuri saapuneen komission jäsenen Stella Kyriakidesin

tervetulleeksi. Tämän kyselytunnin aiheena on torjunta-aineiden käytön vähentäminen ja kuluttajansuojan vahvistaminen.

Tämä kyselytunti kestää noin 60 minuuttia. Kysymyksiä ei myönnetä etukäteen yksittäisille jäsenille. Kysymyksen esittämiseen varataan yksi minuutti, komission vastaukseen kaksi minuuttia, lisäkysymykseen 30 sekuntia ja vastaukseen kaksi minuuttia.

Mahdollisen lisäkysymyksen on liityttävä ehdottomasti varsinaiseen kysymykseen, eikä se saa muodostaa uutta, itsenäistä kysymystä.

Jos haluatte esittää kysymyksen, pyydän rekisteröimään pyyntönne nyt käyttämällä äänestyskoneenne catch-the-eye-toimintoa sen jälkeen, kun äänestyskortti on syötetty koneeseen.

Ohjeita on saatavilla istuntosalissa.

Muistutan, että voitte valita paikkanne istuntosalissa vapaasti lukuun ottamatta kahta ensimmäistä riviä, jotka on tarkoitettu ryhmien johtajille.

Kyselytunnin puheenvuorot käytetään omalta paikalta. Kehotan kaikkia puhujia pitäytymään kullekin varatussa puheajassa.

Kollegat saattavat tarvita hetken rekisteröidäkseen äänestyskoneella pyyntönsä esittää kysymys. Pyydän teitä rekisteröimään pyyntönne nyt, ja sen jälkeen aloitamme ensimmäisellä kysymyksellä.

  Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria Kyriakides, bienvenida a este turno de preguntas.

La Comisión ha anunciado que próximamente vamos a tener un Reglamento ─pensé que sería una Directiva, pero, al parecer, es un Reglamento─ sobre un uso más sostenible de los plaguicidas, es decir, sobre su reducción, como se prometía en el Pacto Verde Europeo. Se trata de una demanda de la sociedad, sin duda, pero, desde el primer momento, sí tengo que decirles que nos preocupa, porque el problema para los agricultores no es la reducción de los plaguicidas, sino la falta de alternativas para poder llevarla a cabo.

Por lo tanto, me gustaría que hoy quedase aquí claro, en esta intervención o en las siguientes de mis colegas, cuál va a ser el porcentaje de reducción de los plaguicidas y qué alternativas va a poner la Comisión a disposición de los agricultores para que la sanidad vegetal no se vea perjudicada.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Thank you, MEP Aguilera, for the question. First of all, in terms of the targets that you have asked for, let us go back to the beginning and say a little bit about the ‘farm to fork’ strategy. Farm to fork has been put in place with very clear targets. It’s a strategy that is part of the Green Deal in order for citizens to have safe and affordable foods.

What we have said in our strategy is that, by 2030, we will reduce the use of chemical pesticides by 50%, and again, by 2030, we will reduce the use by 50% of the most hazardous pesticides. You are totally correct in saying that we are putting forward before the summer a new ‘sustainable use of pesticides’ regulation. This is important for us in order to be able to build up our long—term food security and resilience.

But we are fully aware also of the challenges that are going to be faced, and the need to have alternatives, and we are working very closely with the Member States in order to be able to have this. I think that what we also need to say from the very beginning of this interesting debate is that we are aware of the challenges, but doing nothing is clearly not an option. I think we all need to agree on that.

We also know that there are various studies that have shown that the current directive has weaknesses in its implementation. This is why we are going to be moving forward, because over—use of pesticides leads to contamination of our air, of our soil, and it definitely impacts on our health. We will be moving forward while also helping farmers develop other, less hazardous, less dangerous options that they can use. For this we are already moving to encouraging the use of bio—pesticides so that they can be an alternative to chemical pesticides that will allow farmers to continue to be producing in a safe way and also be protecting crops.

  Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, para que haya responsabilidad y para que sea real esa reducción del porcentaje que quieren ustedes que alcance el 50 %, hay que poner alternativas viables y factibles a disposición de los agricultores desde el momento en que se produce la reducción.

¿Por qué no adelantan la nueva normativa sobre nuevas técnicas de cultivo, que sería una buena salida, junto con los plaguicidas u otras alternativas? Adelanten esa iniciativa o tomen otras iniciativas, pero, a la par que llevan a cabo la reducción, tienen que poner a disposición otros productos.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Yes, and we will be doing everything possible to make these alternatives available. We are going to be using, and this is how we’re going to be moving forward ... We’re going to be giving support to farmers during this transmission. They will have the support through the CAP in order that we can move to more environmentally friendly farming. And experience has shown us that we can do this and we are able to move forward by giving them alternatives.

And I believe that this is the way that we are going to be able to deliver on our ambition: by providing alternatives to the chemical pesticides, by encouraging the use of biological alternatives, and by facilitating and using innovation in order to achieve this.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – I am just wondering, Commissioner: what impact assessments have been carried out in the Farm to Fork Strategy to ensure that we will have a sustainable food industry in the years ahead, if we are to reduce and bring forward this regulation with regard to the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation, which I very much support?

We do have to have the research, the innovation, around the alternatives, like bios, like organics, but also even in the context of genetically modified. And I know that we in this House, in previous times, have had major discussions on this particular issue. But we fail to come to a consensus. We fail to understand the science or to accept the science.

So I’m just wondering, have we carried out impact assessments? Do we know that the alternatives will be there immediately? And what other impacts could it have on the cost of food, the drop in yields and production by farmers because they are not able to put chemical pesticides on crops?

So, particularly in view of escalating food costs, inflationary pressures, this is a significant issue and we have to give assurance and clarity to the agricultural sector, the farmers, but also the consumers, not only in terms of the safety of the products, but the cost of the product as well.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – I’m well aware of the concerns, especially due to the current situation that we are living in with the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, I will go back to what I said: doing nothing is not an option.

Of course, everything that we are putting forward in ‘farm to fork’ is based on scientific guidance, and an impact assessment on the targets has been carried out and will be published towards the end of this year. So we are moving very carefully, impact assessments are being carried out and, of course, we are basing all our proposals on science.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – So I welcome that, Commissioner, but I do believe that we actually have to have the publications of these impact assessments in advance of us actually making fundamental decisions around how we farm, how we produce food and how we make sure it’s safe, right throughout the process to the tables in homes across Europe. Because we simply cannot hope that there will be some replacements, we have to insist that there will be.

So, we do need to see the impact assessments on the potential drops in yields, the potential spikes in food, but also in what we actually intend to replace these chemical pesticides with.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – For all the initiatives and proposals that are in ‘farm to fork’, impact assessments are ongoing. I believe that we need to also understand that the current crisis, in fact, should strengthen our resolve, that we need to move forward and strengthen the resilience of our food systems. We will do this without leaving anyone behind. We need to do this having everyone on board and, of course, farmers are very much an important part of this process.

So please appreciate that impact assessments are ongoing. We are constantly in consultation with stakeholders. It is important for us that farmers are supported throughout this transition. But really the alternative of doing nothing, I think, is something that we can all agree is not a viable option.

It is very clear to us – and I will stop here – following the pandemic, how interconnected our health and our environment is, and that we need to move forward in a different way.

  Benoît Biteau (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, il y a deux postulats sur lesquels on peut s’appuyer. Le premier, c’est qu’il y a un lien évident entre l’utilisation des pesticides et la santé des consommateurs, et il est de notre devoir de vérifier que la santé des consommateurs n’est plus menacée et de faire en sorte qu’elle ne le soit plus.

L’autre constat – et je suis désolé, mes chers collègues, je vais voler au secours de Mme la commissaire –, c’est que d’autres solutions existent. Nous avons des études scientifiques robustes qui démontrent que les substituts aux pesticides ont un nom: l’agronomie. Moi-même qui suis paysan j’en utilise les méthodes depuis très longtemps, et elles fonctionnent à merveille, parce que la biodiversité vient nous aider, parce que le climat est moins violent envers les gens qui travaillent avec ces méthodes alternatives-là.

Nous devons donc faire en sorte que les politiques publiques ne soutiennent que ces méthodes alternatives-là, mais, malheureusement, la PAC n’est pas au rendez-vous, et les plans stratégiques nationaux déposés par la majorité des États membres ne sont pas non plus à la hauteur de ces enjeux.

La question que j’ai donc à vous poser, Madame la Commissaire, est la suivante: comment allons-nous être au rendez-vous que nous avons avec l’histoire avec cette PAC-là et avec les plans stratégiques nationaux qui sont actuellement sur la table?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – (begins off microphone) ... for that input. And it gives me the opportunity to come back to a point as well that there is increasing evidence – and you have already stated that – that alternative products can effectively substitute the use of chemical pesticides. And, in fact, I have data from Spain that show that the use of chemical pesticides in indoor vegetable production in Almeria has been reduced by over 55%, and that over 80% of protected crops now use biological controls to treat pests.

So there are ways forward, and we will be working with Member States, and already are working with Member States, so that they are able to use their CAPs in a way that will support farmers in this transition. I think it is important to show that we do have the science – the figures are very encouraging – that we can work together to reduce the use of pesticides without compromising food security. And I would agree with you totally that this is tied in so closely with health that we need to move forward with this.

So we are committed to moving forward with Farm to Fork, as we have been from the beginning.

  Benoît Biteau (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Commissaire, ceci n’est pas une question. Je souhaite amplifier, renforcer mon propos en disant que les substituts aux pesticides ne sont pas forcément de nouveaux pesticides, de nouveaux biopesticides, mais surtout des pratiques agronomiques qui anticipent et qui préviennent les attaques de champignons, d’insectes, en utilisant moins d’azote par exemple. Ce sont des méthodes alternatives qui génèrent de véritables cercles vertueux pour la biodiversité, pour notre santé et pour le climat, et pour l’économie des agriculteurs, par ailleurs. Je vous invite donc à travailler davantage sur ces méthodes, qui se fondent plus volontiers sur l’agronomie que sur des molécules.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – No, I don’t think it was a question, it was more an added explanation. But it is important here to say that exactly the CAP can be used to finance this transition into these different systems of agriculture. And the upcoming SUD revision is going to be very much linked to the CAP synergies. So I think this is correctly the way forward.

  Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Zużycie najniebezpieczniejszych pestycydów w Europie rośnie. W rezultacie Europejczycy są narażeni na coraz większy kontakt z toksycznymi substancjami. Znamy negatywny wpływ pestycydów na zdrowie ludzi i zwierząt oraz na środowisko i różnorodność biologiczną. Trzeba więc pilnie podjąć działania dla promocji i wsparcia rozwiązań alternatywnych. Trzeba prowadzić ogólnoeuropejskie akcje informacyjne, bowiem rolnicy często nie wiedzą, po którą substancje mogą sięgnąć, jeśli chcą zwiększyć bezpieczeństwo żywności. Trzeba stworzyć efektywne instrumenty, aby podnieść opłacalność upraw bez chemii.

Ale czy zaproponowana przez Fransa Timmermansa, wiceprzewodniczącego Komisji Europejskiej, redukcja o 50 % zużycia pestycydów bez uwzględnienia różnych uwarunkowań państw członkowskich jest właściwym i sprawiedliwym rozwiązaniem? Rolnicy w państwach Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej zużywają kilkakrotnie mniej pestycydów w przeliczeniu na hektar niż w wielu krajach Europy Zachodniej. Jeśli redukcja obejmie procentowo równo każde państwo, to w wielu państwach Europy Zachodniej będzie się zużywać nadal więcej środków ochrony niż przed redukcją, np. w Polsce.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Thank you for the question. Well, first of all, let me just say that the proposal for the sustainable use of pesticides will be looking at placing targets – I believe strongly that targets are important. This is about reducing the use of chemical pesticides where possible.

We are also working through this on a revision on a range of supporting measures, including what we can put to support others on the market of less hazardous pesticides. But here there will be different starting points for the different Member States, because I think that this is something that we have to recognise.

The Farm to Fork pesticides targets have been established based on the extensive experience that we have on the development of the existing harmonised risk indicator. It makes it clear that the approach will take into account the different starting points and the differences and improvements potential in the Member States. So we will be looking at that.

But I believe that this is the approach we need to go forward with, because if we want to deliver on what citizens are expecting of us – to reduce pesticide use – all Member States will have to make an effort. But we will have different starting points for different Member States.

  Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jeszcze w takim razie, Pani Komisarz, dopytam. Czy nieaktualne są już założenia tego zaproponowanego rozporządzenia, o którym już wspomniałam, wiceprzewodniczącego Komisji Europejskiej Fransa Timmermansa, o redukcji o 50% pestycydów stosowanych w rolnictwie bez uwzględnienia różnicy w uwarunkowaniach krajów członkowskich? Czy celem nie powinno być nie tylko obniżenie, ale i zrównanie zużycia pestycydów na hektar we wszystkich państwach członkowskich?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – The revision of the Sustainable Use Directive from the very beginning was very clear that it would have targets, but that we would be taking into account the different starting points of Member States. I think that this is necessary in order for us to be able to move forward.

This revision is necessary so that we protect the biodiversity, protect the environment and protect human health. We are working, as I said, on a wide range of measures in order to be able to put this into effect. So we are committed to all the ‘farm to fork’ targets. I have said this from the beginning; I will keep on repeating it if I must.

  Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Voorzitter, als u een smoothie met bijvoorbeeld kiwi, peer of kersen maakt, krijgt u niet alleen voldoende vezels en vitaminen binnen, maar ook een ongezonde cocktail van pesticiden, die voor een steeds groter deel uit de schadelijkste landbouwgiffen bestaat.

Deze gifstoffen hadden allang verboden moeten zijn. Uit recent onderzoek is echter gebleken dat ze juist steeds meer worden gebruikt. Los van de gevaren van afzonderlijke landbouwgiffen worden de effecten van gifstoffen nog altijd niet in samenhang beoordeeld. Hiervoor had de Commissie al tien jaar geleden moeten zorgen.

Wanneer worden landbouwgiffen eindelijk cumulatief beoordeeld? Wanneer worden de schadelijkste en gevaarlijkste landbouwgiffen eindelijk verboden?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – The Commission's evaluation of the pesticides legislation showed that the work on developing the methodology for the cumulative risk assessment for pesticide residues has been more complex than was initially expected, and that this work definitely needs to be accelerated.

Now as for the risk assessment, in 2020, EFSA delivered two reports assessing the cumulative risks of combined exposure to pesticide residues, and recently published its prospective scenarios for establishing maximum residue levels for pesticides based on the cumulative risk assessment methodology.

The Commission and EFSA have prepared an action plan to speed up the work on further developing the methodology in order to cover other target organs and to gradually implement it into regulatory practice. So the work is continuing and it is considered to be of the highest priority.

  Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Voorzitter, commissaris, bedankt voor uw antwoorden. Volgens de Commissie is de beoordeling van de cumulatieve effecten een ingewikkelde zaak en kan het nog lang duren voordat deze wordt ingevoerd.

Als we consumenten daadwerkelijk tegen het cocktaileffect willen beschermen, kunnen we twee dingen doen: slechts één landbouwgif per gewas toestaan of consumenten rechtstreeks over de gebruikte pesticiden informeren via etiketten.

Is de Commissie bereid dit te doen totdat de cumulatieve effecten goed kunnen worden beoordeeld?

  Puhemies. – Komission jäsen Kyriakides, olkaa hyvä.

  Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Yes, thank you. I will try in English then.

As long as the cumulative effects cannot be assessed – and it will take some time and it is complex, I heard – in the meantime, to protect consumers, are you willing to allow only one pesticide per crop to prevent a cocktail effect? Or, another possibility to protect consumers is to fully inform them through the label. So are you willing to put all the pesticides that were used on a specific crop, on the label?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – First of all, the protection of consumers’ health is, of course, the highest priority. It’s not something that is disputable, and we’re working through ‘farm to fork’ to ensure that consumers have access to all the information needed. That is done in a variety of ways throughout the farm to fork strategy, because we believe that having informed consumers is the best way forward and we need also to educate consumers. We mustn’t forget that it’s not only about educating farmers, because farmers are also consumers, but educating consumers as well.

Now, in the EU, as I’m sure you know, food labelling is covered by specific rules, and residues are not considered as ingredients for labelling purposes. In addition, we have a monitoring report by EFSA, for 2020, and more than 94% of the samples that were then analysed for pesticides did not contain any residues, or residues below the legally permitted levels. So the available data that we have indicates that the food placed on the EU market is safe about consumers, and very stringent controls are carried out by the enforcement authorities of Member States.

Our work continues, will continue, and will always continue, to be based on science. It is not about the cost; it is sometimes about the scientific complexity, and the EU has some of the strictest systems in place in the world, I would think, in terms of this.

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, pour réduire l’utilisation des pesticides nous devons – et vous l’avez dit – inscrire dans la loi des objectifs obligatoires de réduction au niveau des États membres. Mais nous devons aussi identifier les substances qui seront ciblées en priorité et nous devons interdire les substances les plus nocives, en particulier lorsqu’elles sont répertoriées comme candidates à la substitution.

La Commission obligera-t-elle les États membres à inclure dans leur plan d’action national un plan de substitution des substances, en commençant par les plus toxiques? Si oui, dans quel délai ?

Au-delà de la réduction de l’utilisation des pesticides en agriculture, d’autres mesures pourraient être prises, comme par exemple l’interdiction de ces pesticides dans les espaces publics, dans les aires de jeux pour enfants. C’est déjà le cas en Belgique et en France, alors que, dans d’autres États membres, l’utilisation de tels pesticides se fait encore au sein de ces espaces. Est-ce que vous envisagez d’interdire ces pesticides dans les espaces publics?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – I think this is a very important issue, as everything else, but it is a very important issue for our citizens. We are considering prohibiting the use of pesticides in sensitive areas, such as certain areas which are used by the general public: parks, playgrounds, areas where there are ecologically sensitive areas such as Natura 2000 sites. Because our whole aim is to protect human health and protect the environment. And there is no reason to use potentially dangerous substances in areas that are used by citizens, especially those which are most vulnerable, which are our children.

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Commissaire, je voulais aussi vous poser une question. On parle ici de leur utilisation par le secteur public dans les espaces publics, mais ces pesticides chimiques connaissent aussi des utilisations privées par des ménages privés, lesquelles sont tout aussi destructrices de la biodiversité. Est-ce que dans ce cas-là aussi vous envisagez des mesures de restriction?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – We aim to reduce the use of pesticides across the board – I think you’re talking about the non-agricultural use of pesticides. We aim to reduce the use of pesticides across the board.

For example, in the upcoming Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, we want to reflect on the ways and the clear wish that we see coming from society not to use pesticides in areas such as playgrounds and parks. So we are aiming to reduce the use of pesticides across the board.

  Sarah Wiener (Verts/ALE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, danke, dass Sie sich für diesen Austausch zur Verfügung stellen. Sie haben die volle Unterstützung bei der Farm-to-Fork-Strategie, denn wir wissen, es eilt und es brennt: Die Kosten der Untätigkeit werden jedes Jahr größer.

Gerade bei den Pestiziden ist es so: Je mehr Pestizide wir ausbringen, desto mehr schädigen sie nicht nur die Bodengesundheit, nicht nur unser eigenes Mikrobiom, sondern sie schädigen einfach auch die Mitwelt, die Umwelt, das Wasser, die Luft, die Tiere, die Bestäuber. Deswegen ist es immanent wichtig, dass wir uns klarmachen: Was ist nachhaltige Landwirtschaft, was bedeutet Nachhaltigkeit? Und das ist sicher nicht die Benutzung von irgendeinem chemischen Pestizid und schon gar nicht von hochgefährlichen Pestiziden.

Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie darüber Bescheid wissen, dass es französische Studien gibt, die 80 % Pestizidreduktion durchgeführt haben und festgestellt haben, dass es keine Ertragsverluste gibt. Es gibt sogar Studien aus Italien, die bei 95 %iger Reduktion von Neonicotinoiden noch immer keine Ertragsausfälle feststellen. Das zeigt ganz deutlich: Wir haben eine Übernutzung von Pestiziden.

Deswegen ist meine Frage: Werden Sie da etwas unternehmen? Werden Sie zu Ihrem Wort stehen? Werden diese SUD und die Ziele der Farm-to-Fork auch wirklich von Ihnen vorwärtsgetrieben? Und wird die sustainable use of pesticides dann auch wirklich vor dem Sommer vorgestellt?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Yes, we tend to bring forward this revision before the summer, as we have said. I want to thank you for raising the issue to do with pollinators, and the importance of that.

As you know, it was at my request in June last year that the majority of agriculture ministers supported, in the Council, a specific protection goal for the protection of bees. Of course, we need to do further work on this in order to be able to have the protection goal as well for bumblebees and solitary bees, because we do not have the scientific evidence yet. But the proposal that we are putting forward is to have the highest level of protection.

In terms of the directive that we’re putting through, it will share the same objectives as the current legislation, which is to protect biodiversity. But of course, we will be doing this in a way that it can be better implemented, putting specific targets. So thank you for that.

  Sarah Wiener (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich habe keine Nachfrage, sondern nur eine Bemerkung: Als Imkerin werde ich genau hinschauen, was Sie bezüglich Bestäubern machen möchten. Sie sind nicht nur verantwortlich für unsere Lebensmittel, sondern Sie sind auch verantwortlich für einen hoffentlich guten und giftfreien Honig.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiama komisare. Mes čia visi sutinkame, kad reikėtų sumažinti pesticidų naudojimą dėl vartotojų sveikatos, tačiau mažinant pesticidus reikia ūkininkams suteikti galimybę apsaugoti savo pasėlius nuo kenkėjų ir suteikti tam tikrus instrumentus. Jeigu naujos mokslo įdiegimo technologijos, tokios kaip genominės technologijos, kaip genų redagavimas, galėtų suteikti daug galimybių, pavyzdžiui, leisti auginti augalus, kurie atsparesni ligoms, aplinkos sąlygoms, klimato kaitai ir kenkėjų poveikiui. Tai veda prie atsparesnės ir švaresnės žemės ūkio maisto sistemos ir prisideda prie žaliojo kurso. Kalbant apie genominių technologijų saugos problemas nenustatyta naujų pavojų, palyginus su tradiciniu veisimu. Naudojant naujas technologijas netikslių mutacijų yra mažiau nei įprasto veisimo metu. Tiksli mutagenezė ir krizagenezė kelia tokią pat riziką kaip ir įprastinis veisimas. Mano klausimas: kada planuojate pateikti atnaujintus teisės aktus, kad jie geriau atspindėtų mokslo raidą, sudarytų sąlygas Europos Sąjungos mokslininkams ir ūkininkams konkuruoti pasaulinėse rinkose?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Yes, we want to promote more sustainable farming with the smarter use of inputs. And, of course, in order to be able to move towards more sustainable food systems, we need to, as you say, unlock the potential of new technologies and alternative approaches to farming. For example, we can have precision farming. These technologies must be made available and affordable for farmers. And when we achieve this, it can only be, as I said before, a win-win situation for farmers and the environment.

Now, you mentioned the new genomic techniques, if I understood correctly from the interpretation, we are committed to act in this field given the potential of new genomic techniques to contribute to sustainability objectives. However, we need to take the necessary steps in order to have a robust impact assessment, including a very wide consultation process and a legislative proposal, which is what you ask, if appropriate, will be then put forward in view of the impact assessment. This could be tabled following the impact assessment and the consultation before the summer of next year.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Aš taip pat noriu padėkoti už atsakymą ir lauksime kitų metų, kada Jūsų siūlymas bus pateiktas. Bet aš noriu sugrįžti dar prie klausimo dėl skirtingų pesticidų naudojimo. Kaip Jūs, Komisare, sakėte, kad bus atsižvelgta į startines pozicijas, o ar bus atsižvelgta į tai, kad kai kuriose šalyse ūkininkai jau dabar vartoja mažiau pesticidų ir jie nebus baudžiami už tai, kad bus siūloma jiems sumažinti penkiasdešimt procentų, bet bus suteikta papildoma pagalba, kad jie vartoja mažiau pesticidų negu kitose šalyse?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – What we are trying to do through Farm to Fork is not to punish anyone. What we want to do is move towards a direction, a direction that will serve health, environment, sustainability and food safety. I think that we can all agree that this is crucial and that the price of inaction is much greater than the way we’re going to move forward.

And there will be there will be targets. We will be taking into consideration the starting points of Member States in order to be able to move forward.

And I just want to say again that we will be supporting farmers through the transition of the CAP and of course need to respect those who find more challenges. So let’s at least try and agree that we have a common direction in this. And this is not about punishing. The only ones who will be punished if we do not act are going to be future generations.

  Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ja, Frau Kommissarin, Sie glauben an die Gentechnik. Aber sehen Sie auch, dass bei der Gentechnik in Südamerika und in den USA der Einsatz von Pestiziden gestiegen ist? Glauben Sie tatsächlich, bei der neuen Gentechnik tritt das Gegenteil ein?

Was ist eigentlich eine nachhaltige Nutzung von Pestiziden? Sustainable use of pesticides ist für mich ein Begriff, der gar nicht funktioniert. Wir müssen weniger Pestizide einsetzen. Aber was heißt denn nachhaltig? Der Verlust an Biodiversität ist wirklich dramatisch. Und deshalb: Schaffen Sie es wirklich, die Pestizide um 50 % zu reduzieren – gegen den enormen Widerstand der Agrarlobby? Sind Sie sich sicher, dass Sie in der Kommission dafür auch eine Mehrheit bekommen? Es gibt erhebliche Widerstände, wie man so hört.

Eine Frage zum Zulassungsprozess: Jahrelang wurde gesagt: Neonicotinoide sind völlig ungefährlich. Dann merkt man nach 20 Jahren: Nein, das Gegenteil ist richtig: Neonicotinoide sind extrem gefährlich. Wie wollen Sie eigentlich garantieren, dass die Zulassungsprozesse bei Pestiziden in Zukunft so sind, dass wir auf Ungefährlichkeit hoffen können?

Beispiel Glyphosat: Dass die Kommission jetzt wieder Glyphosat zulassen will, halte ich eigentlich für einen Skandal, denn alle wissenschaftlichen Studien zeigen: Glyphosat ist auch giftig.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – The question was whether we are committed and whether the Commission will be able to move forward. I have said it and I will repeat it again. We have a Farm to Fork strategy. We’ve put it forward. It’s a part of our European Green Deal. It has many, many pillars and strategies, and we are fully committed to its implementation.

Actually, Farm to Fork has as a title – I was reading about it today – ‘Our health, our planet, our future’. I think that says it all.

In terms of the revision of the sustainable use of pesticides, I have said that we aim to come forward with that before the summer. The targets are there. The targets are necessary. It’s not about banning the use of chemical pesticides, but it’s about reducing the use where possible and where there are no viable alternatives. So we are working on a wide range of supporting measures to be able to achieve this and I am sure that once we put forward our proposal, we will have your support.

  Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin, glauben Sie, dass die Mitgliedstaaten da mit Ihnen mitgehen? Denn seit Jahren verweigern ja die Mitgliedstaaten eine Reduzierung, wie sie jetzt eigentlich schon im integrierten Landbau vorgesehen ist. Es gibt keine Berichte aus den Mitgliedsländern, und es werden auch keine Pläne auf den Tisch gelegt, wie Pestizide in den Mitgliedsländern reduziert werden.

Also glauben Sie daran, dass die Mitgliedsländer da mitspielen? Ernsthaft?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Curiously, yes. I’m going to, definitely. I believe in consultation; I believe in being able to talk; I believe that we have a good working relationship with Member States. We’ve managed this when we were talking about changing the goals for protection of bees; we got there. So it’s about consultation; it’s about exchanging. In the end, I believe that we all want the same thing.

So as long as we have the supporting targets in place, as long as we can support our farmers as well, and we aim to do this, I believe, yes.

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l'invasione russa dell'Ucraina ci ha fatto render conto di come, per troppo tempo, abbiamo dato per scontata la sicurezza alimentare. Purtroppo non è così.

Putin ha creato una crisi, sta creando una crisi, con l'accesso al cibo nel bacino del Mediterraneo, minando l'equilibrio geopolitico e creando le condizioni per una ripresa delle ondate migratorie che l'Unione ha già faticosamente affrontato durante le primavere arabe. Un contesto estremamente delicato che, tuttavia, le prime bozze di nuova normativa sui fitofarmaci sembrano del tutto ignorare, Commissaria.

In tali bozze la Commissione stessa stima impatti significativi sulla produzione europea, conseguenti sia all'aumento dei prezzi per i nostri consumatori, sia all'aumento delle importazioni da parte di paesi terzi. Tutto ciò non garantirà alcun rispetto dei nostri standard di sostenibilità e il tutto senza offrire ai nostri agricoltori alcuna alternativa valida all'utilizzo della chimica.

Come hanno detto tanti altri colleghi, Commissaria, non ritiene che sia arrivato il momento di rompere gli indugi e di mettere sul tavolo la nuova normativa sulle biotecnologie sostenibili? Così si potrà finalmente ridurre la chimica.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – The Russian aggression of Ukraine has called for targeted short—term measures, and we have been working at full speed as a Commission to a very rapidly developing situation.

The war in Ukraine, combined with a price surge, has brought forward the links of geopolitics, globalisation and climate change and food security. However, the war in Ukraine does not remove the fact that climate change, biodiversity loss and scarcity are some of the biggest threats facing humanity in the next decades. And the cost of inaction hugely outweighs the costs related to transition. So, we are committed to the Green Deal and Farm to Fork and its ambitions, and we will be working very closely in order to ensure that we are going to be able to support and deal with the fall—back of this war as much as possible.

And let me just say here that we have taken a number of steps already to ensure that we secure as much as possible the movement of food. For example, we adopted solidarity corridors recently in order to enable grain exports from Ukraine. So we will be moving with this as much as possible.

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Grazie per la sua risposta, Commissaria, ma la mia domanda è la seguente: non ritiene che ci sia un controsenso se la Commissione, da una parte, vuole aumentare la produzione agricola europea – e infatti abbiamo sospeso temporaneamente l'ecological focus area, ovvero la messa a riposo obbligatoria del 5 % della superficie arabile – ma poi, dall'altra parte, presenta una proposta che vorrà ridurre la produzione europea? Credo che ci sia qualche incongruenza che va superata.

  Puhemies. – Voisitteko hyvin lyhyesti kiteyttää kysymyksenne, koska meillä ei äsken ollut tulkkausta.

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Signora Commissaria, adesso mi sente? Molto brevemente le domando come mai la Commissione, da una parte, ha interrotto temporaneamente l'ecological focus area, cioè di fatto l'obbligo di messa a riposo del 5 % della superficie arabile per aumentare la produzione europea e, dall'altra parte, con questo provvedimento che si annuncia sui fitofarmaci vuole ridurre la produzione europea? Perché questa è l'analisi di impatto che presenta proprio la proposta stessa della Commissione.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Yes, thank you for that. I’m sorry I didn’t have the translation before.

No, it’s not going in the opposite direction. In fact, we’re not going to be banning the use of pesticides. We’re looking to reduce them, as I have said, through the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation, and we will be working towards this in order to be able to achieve what we have already said.

I just wanted to say here that in order to do this, we need to have the systematic application of integrated pest management. This must become the norm. Of course, the war in Ukraine has necessarily made us pause on some actions and take targeted short-term measures, but it is not a reason not to go forward.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, no debate que hoje aqui se promove refere-se, e bem, a necessidade de reduzir o uso de pesticidas, salvaguardando os interesses dos consumidores.

Sucede que a utilização de pesticidas não se pode dissociar dos fenómenos da crescente concentração da produção agrícola e intensificação do modelo produtivo que, em países como Portugal, nos últimos 30 anos, levaram à perda de centenas de milhares de explorações, sobretudo de pequena dimensão e familiares, e correspondentes postos de trabalho.

No dia em que aqui neste hemiciclo se celebraram os 60 anos da PAC importa recordar as consequências da Política Agrícola Comum naqueles fenómenos, mas também na redução da diversidade biológica na produção agrícola, no abandono de espécies tradicionais, na normalização e padronização da produção. Um caminho que reverte a favor das multinacionais do setor agroalimentar, com a cumplicidade da Comissão Europeia e da UE, favorecendo a superprodução intensiva, a monocultura, a disseminação de OGM associados, tantas vezes, ao aumento de resistências aos pesticidas, impondo a absoluta dependência dos produtores em relação às multinacionais.

Está a Comissão disposta a questionar este caminho?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – As I have said, we need to maintain viable and competitive agriculture. And with the support under the CAP, we can move to more environmentally friendly farming with reduced inputs that are going to be more resilient to shock.

And the current crisis has reinforced our conviction that the resilience of our food systems needs a fundamental change and reorientation of EU agriculture food systems towards sustainability.

So, I believe that the ambitious farm to fork strategy goals are more relevant now than ever. We need to decrease our overreliance on inputs, including pesticides and fertilisers through innovation, agroecology and the adoption of best practices. And we will be doing this while supporting, of course, farmers through the CAP. We are committed to making this transition to sustainable food systems successful.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, eu percebo que seja difícil, ao fim de tantas perguntas, repetir muitas vezes o mesmo conteúdo e a evidência, enfim, de que há menos disponibilidade por parte da Comissão para, de facto, questionar o que é necessário. Porque reduzir a utilização de pesticidas passa por questionar o modelo produtivo, por direcionar os apoios à pequena e média agricultura, à agricultura familiar, valorizar métodos tradicionais de produção, bem como de espécies tradicionais e autóctones, melhor adaptadas às condições de cada país e que garantam que são menos dependentes do uso deste tipo de fitofármacos das multinacionais do setor.

A questão que se coloca, Senhora Comissária, é se haverá apoios disponíveis direcionados especificamente a este subsector, à pequena e média produção, para alcançar estes fins.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – I believe I have already answered that, and I can just reiterate our commitment to move forward with ‘farm to fork’ as part of the Green Deal. As I have said, we will be moving forward.

  Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, eu defendo e acredito que os objetivos delineados nas estratégias do prado ao prato e da biodiversidade são fundamentais para estabelecer o caminho, o rumo para sistemas agroalimentares mais sustentáveis. E, nesse sentido, também devem servir, obviamente, para estimular o aparecimento de soluções inovadoras e respeitadoras do ambiente, como sejam as substâncias ativas biológicas ou a promoção de métodos naturais de controlo de pragas.

E por isso eu pergunto, no contexto desta nova proposta de legislação, como está a ser equacionada, ou se estará a ser equacionada, a necessidade de agilizar o processo de autorização de substâncias que sejam de baixo risco na agricultura e com respeito integral da segurança para a saúde pública e para o meio ambiente.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Yes, we’re working towards that in order to make it more agile and to be able to move towards approval more quickly.

  Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, peço desculpa, mas eu gostaria de fazer uma segunda pergunta, se me é permitido tal como os meus colegas.

  Puhemies . – Saatte sen, mutta pitäkää kiinni puheajasta, sillä nyt alkavat minuutit olla loppu, olkaa hyvä.

  Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Eu gostaria que o tratamento fosse igual e é uma pergunta muito rápida, uma vez que a resposta da Senhora Comissária também foi muito rápida, está bem? É muito rápida e eu gostaria de perguntar, se me é permitido, em que medida é que nesta nova legislação está a ser equacionada a questão da proteção integrada, desde logo no que toca a uma maior homogeneidade das regras da proteção integrada no contexto da União Europeia.

E devo dizer também que, relativamente à primeira questão, não fiquei totalmente satisfeita, mas compreendo que nesta altura estamos todos muito cansados e com pouca disponibilidade para a resposta.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – No, it’s my responsibility to give you answers. So I will come back to your first question.

As you have said, we need to encourage the use of low—risk and biological alternatives. As I have said from the Commission side, we will be expediting the phasing out of the more hazardous pesticides. But together with this, we will be streamlining – and this is what I maybe didn’t say correctly – and speeding up the approval and procedures for the low—risk products, because the two have to go hand-in-hand. We have already promoted the micro—organisms with concrete proposals, and we have put forward guidance on semi-chemicals and botanicals.

Efforts are also needed from Member States ˗ and I want to say this here ˗ to speed up their assessments at national level in order to make these alternatives available to farmers. We, from our side, will do everything possible to do this, but we also need to have the commitment from the Member States so that these alternatives reach farmers. If we want to see these alternatives reach the market, resources must be made available for this.

For your second question, if I understood it correctly, integrated pest management is at the very core of the proposal.

  Claude Gruffat (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, la Commission prévoit de réduire de 50 % l’utilisation des pesticides, notamment les plus dangereux, d’ici 2030, et je m’en félicite. Mais il lui revient aussi de s’assurer de la bonne application du règlement 1107 de 2009 relatif à la mise sur le marché des pesticides et, surtout, de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne d’octobre 2019 qui demande qu’une évaluation sur la toxicité à long terme des pesticides soit réalisée dans leur formulation commerciale complète. Formulation commerciale complète… Ce n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Qu’entend alors faire la Commission?

Deuxième point, enfin: pourquoi la Commission n’envisage-t-elle pas de faire apparaître la présence de résidus de pesticides dans les produits alimentaires, notamment à travers l’étiquetage alimentaire? Je n’aurai pas d’autre question.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – As we have said before, the consumers in the EU enjoy the highest protection in the world – I believe your question was on the maximum residue levels – and thanks to our very strict regulation, any pesticide residues in our food, whether produced in the EU or imported, are as low as needed to protect consumer safety. EU rules on pesticide residues apply to all substances because we want to have consumer safety protected.

I welcome all the reports that we have from stakeholders because they allow us to have the information that we need to protect our citizens. These are very complex matters, and we owe clarity to our citizens. What is essential is that we know that the residue levels are above or below our EU levels, and we follow very closely EFSA’s recommendations – the report that it publishes every year on pesticide residues. So I believe that this is the way forward, when we are able to assess any of the residues that need to be looked at.

  Claude Gruffat (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Commissaire, je reprends la deuxième question que j’avais posée: pourquoi la Commission n’envisage-t-elle pas de faire apparaître la présence de résidus de pesticides dans les produits alimentaires sur l’étiquetage alimentaire? Je parle bien des résidus légaux autorisés; je ne parle pas de dépassements de normes. Je parle de tous les résidus: quand il y a des résidus, pourquoi ne le fait-on pas apparaître sur l’étiquetage alimentaire?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – As I have already said before, the EU labelling is under a different legislation. We agree with the court ruling – because you mentioned earlier the court ruling – Member States do the assessment for pesticide residues, and we will be looking at this.

  Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Doamna președintă, doamna comisar, și eu vreau ca viața fiecărui cetățean european să fie protejată.

Sunt medic de urgență la Iași, la Spitalul Clinic de Urgență Nicolae Oblu și tratez efectele acestor substanțe toxice, o variată gamă de patologii, iar întrebările mele sunt clare. Obiectivele sunt extrem de generoase. Dar vreau să știu și eu cine și cum va verifica ca aceste obiective să fie puse în practică, iar pe de altă parte cine și cum va doza și identifica aceste substanțe.

Și doamna comisar, vă gândiți cumva la o rețea independentă de centre care să asigure aceste evaluări? Pentru că ne-am cam săturat să existe un dublu standard și una să fie într-o parte a Uniunii Europene și alta să fie în cealaltă parte.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – The European Food Safety Authority publishes each year a report on pesticide residues in food products, which is the most comprehensive report on this issue for the entire of the EU. And samples are analysed under an EU coordinated approach. And there are national control programmes in place.

In case of non-compliance, the Member States take the necessary action, such as withdrawing or recalling the products. And I believe that we have already said that we place extremely high standards as the EU in order to protect our citizens’ health.

  Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Vielen Dank, Frau Kommissarin, dass Sie zu dieser späten Stunde noch bereit sind, Antworten zu geben. Ich mache es auch sehr kurz.

Ich frage mich schon seit längerem, warum wir eigentlich immer wieder zustimmen müssen bzw. in Kenntnis gesetzt werden, dass Rückstandmengen von Pestiziden, die in der Europäischen Union längst verboten sind, auf Produkten, die nach wie vor in unseren Läden zu kaufen sind, erlaubt werden. Zum Teil werden diese Mengen sogar hochgesetzt, wie eben in einem aktuellen Fall – anscheinend, weil wir ohne Zucchini aus den USA nicht leben können.

Ich frage jetzt die Kommission: Wie gedenkt sie, zukünftig damit umzugehen, dass Pestizide, die aufgrund ihrer Gefährlichkeit in der Europäischen Union verboten sind, auf Importlebensmitteln dennoch zugelassen sind?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – I have already, I think, said that the data that we have is that the food placed on the EU market is safe for consumers. We have very stringent checks done by the authorities of the Member States, and the consumers in the EU enjoy some of the highest levels of protection in the world. This is thanks to very strict regulations of any pesticide residues in our food, whether it’s produced in the EU or whether it is imported, and this is as strict as it needs to be in order to ensure consumer safety.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Commissioner, the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee on glyphosate said last week that it is not justified to conclude that it causes cancer.

However, these findings contradict those of other institutions, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans as far back as 2015.

In an opinion published on 10 January, the French National Commission on Ethics and Alerts in Public Health and the Environment recommended a review of the process used to arrive at the expert opinion on the re—authorisation of glyphosate. The President of that Commission has told Le Monde that the renewable assessment report made a drastic selection, excludes most of the studies on glyphosate published in international scientific literature and mainly retains those provided by the industry.

Are you concerned that the European Chemical Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee has ignored scientific advice by independent scientists on glyphosate’s carcinogenic dangers?

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Glyphosate illustrates the importance that society gives to reducing pesticide use and to moving towards an agriculture system that is closer to nature.

Now, the renewal process is a long and complex one. I am concerned about the delay for the completion of the scientific reviews on glyphosate and the consequences that this may have on the timelines of the overall renewal process. As you know, the current approval of the active substance expires on 15 December 2022. However, we must respect this process and we must ensure that sufficient time is given to the scientific agencies to review – what I can assure you, because I have looked into it – the huge amount of comments of questions and evidence shared by citizens and stakeholders during the public consultation.

I want to be absolutely clear: if evidence emerges that the forthcoming work that the approval criteria laid down in the EU legislation are no longer fulfilled for glyphosate, the Commission will not hesitate to take action to not renew the approval of glyphosate.

  Puhemies. – Kiitoksia komission jäsenelle. Kyselytunti on päättynyt. 16 edustajaa teki kysymyksiä, ja komission jäsen Kyriakides vastasi niihin kaikkiin.