Full text 
Procedure : 2006/0132(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document: :

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 12/01/2009 - 14
CRE 12/01/2009 - 14

Votes :

PV 13/01/2009 - 6.10
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

Monday, 12 January 2009 - Strasbourg OJ edition

14. Framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides - Placing of plant protection products on the market (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL ). - Madam President, there are plenty of examples of sound EU environmental polices which improve the lives of citizens across the Union and there are, of course, also many examples where unnecessarily bureaucratic measures come from the EU and restrict the potential to sustain our rural economy and way of life. Unfortunately, I believe this pesticide package may fall into the latter category.

In raising my concerns on these measures, I want to make it clear that I do not have industry in mind but rather the farming community – farmers who, I will remind the previous speakers, have as much concern with human health as any other citizen and who bear no malicious intent in that regard.

This package lacks the sufficient scientific rigour which is needed both to defend our health and our economy. The lack of a thorough impact assessment, taking into account effects on our environment, health, economy and the sustainability of our rural communities, is testament to this failure to apply sufficient rigour.

It is my fear that the package will have the opposite effect of the progressive intentions behind it. The well-intentioned attempt to create a more sustainable countryside may ultimately undermine the countryside by imposing overly stringent rules on an already struggling farming population.

I have listened intently to the arguments made unanimously by farmers in Ireland, and I believe that they are right to be concerned with this package and that the long-term interests of our citizens and of the rural communities are not protected in these measures.

The trialogue position does represent an improvement on the proposal but more needs to be done on the Regulation by way of amendment to meet these real concerns.

Last updated: 9 March 2009Legal notice