On 2 & 3 December, the Environment Committee considered four objections to secondary legislation.
Observations
The trend of more than than one group to succeed is needed continues.
The similarity of the language across political groups except for the ECR becomes more noticeable.
The positions that a few years would have been considered at the margins are now mainstream.
Cancer is used more vocally as a reason to act.
Pesticides’ political allies become fewer (especially in light of the pollinators vote of 67 for, 0 against, and 1 abstention).
- Motion for a resolution on Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Delegated act on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures – titanium dioxide
Anna Zalewska (ECR/Poland)
Against: 46, For: 19, Abstain 4. Fall.
2. Motion for a resolution on Objection pursuant to Rule 112: the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benfluralin, dimoxystrobin, fluazinam, flutolanil, mancozeb, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metiram, oxamyl and pyraclostrobin (D064213-01)
Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI)
For 44, Against 27, Abstain 1
3. Motion for a resolution on Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Imports of petfood from Saudi-Arabia
Joëlle Mélin (ID/France)
For 12, Against 58, Abstain 1
4. Motion for a resolution on Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (D063901)
Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE)
Against 40, For 30, Abstain 1