madam president thank you all for your very fruitful participation in this very interesting debate
the commission has attached particular importance to this file and i have been personally committed to the highest level of public health which it seeks to achieve
there have been long and difficult discussions during the trialogue which the rapporteur has steered with great dedication and skill and i thank her for that
the commission supported the common position and can now support the proposal as it emerges from the second reading
all the innovative aspects of the proposal have been retained in particular the approval criteria which will ensure that dangerous substances which pose a high risk to public health are eliminated or substituted by safer alternatives improved mutual recognition and the substitution of some products by safer alternatives
let me reply however to some of the comments that have been made here
according to the commission's estimate only four of the substances currently on the market would disappear because they are endocrine disruptors and only two because they are carcinogenic mutagenic or toxic to production
the total number of active substances which are currently on the market and which possibly would not be approved under the new regulation is expected to be less than twenty-five substances
this evaluation has been confirmed by a report from the swedish chemical agency and is also in line with the revised impact assessment from the uk pesticides safety directorate
moreover i would like to point out that the new criteria will apply to substances already approved only upon renewal of their approval and for most of them the renewal date is twenty sixteen
the industry will therefore have ample time to develop other safer substances
i would also like to make reference to some comments made about imported food
let me remind you that as from two thousand and eight we have the regulation on maximum residue levels which is fully applicable
if an active substance is not approved for use in plant reduction products in the eu the maximum residue level for this substance is set at the level of detection
this mrl is valid for eu production but also for imported food and feed
there are however several reasons why an active substance could not be approved in the eu and the possible risk to consumers is only one of them
others can be linked to environmental issues or the protection of workers which fall under the sovereignty of third countries where the pesticide is used
in these circumstances the use of the pesticide could not be acceptable for us but the treated crops would not necessarily pose a risk to eu consumers
the third country which wants to export commodities treated with such substances to the eu may therefore ask for an import tolerance as long as it can submit data proving that there is no risk to human health from the consumption of these commodities and that these data are favourably evaluated by efsa and formally adopted in eu legislation
this is the position regarding imported goods
coming back to the directive which we are hopefully about to adopt the commission considers the final compromise to be properly balanced to achieve the objectives of health and environmental production as well as to ensure the availability of pesticides to farmers
we now look forward to the formalisation of the second-reading agreement
this is certainly a very good way for the european parliament and the council to start a new year and good for our citizens as it benefits their health
it is also we believe beneficial to our farmers as it ensures their own production through specific measures such as the promotion of safer products
what was achieved is important
it was achieved by all of us together and serves as an excellent example of how interinstitutional cooperation can directly benefit our citizens
