European Union citizens have repeatedly asked European decision-makers to drastically reduce the usage of pesticides. They so want to defend their health, biodiversity and supply farmers with a long-term position of operating independently from global business. Which politicians listened to and acted on the voice of European citizens?
PAN Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and Corporate Europe Observatory reviewed the electoral behaviour of MEPs. They analysed the results of key votes applicable for reducing pesticide usage in the European Union. See how Polish political groups voted on this issue. Check which side actively supported affirmative changes and who wanted to limit them. The following are the results of three, in our view, the most crucial votes on the simplification of pesticide use.
The usage of pesticides is now 1 of the biggest challenges. A healthy and sustainable future should be a key issue of EU elections.
Pesticides are the main origin of the decline in biodiversity. A dramatic decline in insect and bird numbers has been linked to the usage of pesticides. Our soils are becoming more and more lifeless.
Many agrarian areas have turned into green deserts, losing their soundtrack. vulnerability to pesticides is associated with a long list of wellness factors. Being a farmer or surviving in a village has long lost its healthy connotations. However, balanced farmers across Europe show that integrating, resilient farming practices are ambitiously reducing dependence on pesticides.
Citizens' calls to reduce pesticides were loud and clear. Consultations, Eurobarometers and polls stressed that pesticides are the main concern of citizens. 2 European Citizens' Initiatives (EIOs) called for ambitious pesticide reductions: EIO for the prohibition of glyphosate and EIO for the protection of bees and farmers. The demands of more than 1 million EU citizens have so far remained unanswered.
The Pesticide simplification Act (SUR) should respond to their demands. However, many MEPs have listened to the false narratives of the pesticide manufacture lobby, which struggled hard to torpedo SUR and to avoid reducing pesticides. During the November 2023 plenary vote, the majority of MEPs adopted very damaging amendments which deprived the text of most of its content. The very expected and urgently needed request was yet rejected. The proposal was withdrawn by the Commission in February 2024.
It is crucial for citizens to know which MEPs actively challenged the much needed effective regulation on the regulation of pesticide use, which led to its abandonment. We have assessed the behaviour of MEPs in the 6 key votes during the SUR plenary vote. Now is the time for your vote to count! The absence of a simplification in pesticides is not an option and we request to make certain that MEPs elected in June truly represent the public interest and are committed to making decisions based on science.
1. usage of pesticides, but only as a last resort
One of the main objectives of the SUR was to guarantee the effective implementation of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM puts preventive measures at the pest control centre and pesticides can only be utilized as a last resort. Although the IPM is mandatory under the current directive on the sustainable usage of pesticides (SUD) since 2014, its implementation has not been implemented across the EU. fresh years have shown that a clear framework of rules on individual crops is needed to guarantee the implementation of the IPM. However, many Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of changing the "specific crop regulations" in the SUR proposal to "specific crop guidelines", undermining a clear, binding framework. The following scoreboard shows how much of the political groups voted to implement IPM principles effectively.
EP vote on the regulation on sustainable usage of pesticides (November 2023) Amendment 463 et seq.2. Providing yearly independent advice to farmers
The SUR proposal contained provisions to supply yearly independent advice to farmers. To support farmers in implementing the IPM, support in the form of regular independent advice is crucial. The illustration below shows what percent of political groups supported the solution to guarantee that farmers receive at least yearly independent advice. The remaining Euro MPs voted for only 3 years of independent advice, which is mostly insufficient.
EP vote on the regulation on the sustainable usage of pesticides (November 2023) amendment 6003. simplification of the most harmful pesticides
The SUR proposal contained provisions to reduce the usage of more hazardous pesticides (most harmful pesticides) by 50% by 2030. Most of the amendments tabled in the European Parliament have mostly undermined the objectives of reducing the usage of pesticides. However, the amendment tabled by the ENVI Commission aimed at expanding the mark of reducing more hazardous pesticides to 65%. More dangerous pesticides should be withdrawn as shortly as possible due to their highly toxic properties. It was so crucial that MEPs support this amendment. The illustration below shows what percent of MEPs supported this more ambitious nonsubjective and who rejected it.
EP vote on the regulation on sustainable usage of pesticides (November 2023) Amendment 463 et seq.Is the subject of healthy foods without genetic modifications and pesticides close to your heart? analyse these summary votes and decide who will represent your affairs in the European Union in the close future.
