What Sarah spoke about.

It was your party that voted in favour of the CAP and land subsidies, that is to say, in favour of increasing and promoting agro-industrial measures and letting smallholder farmers slip into unfair competition. They criticize environmental measures without presenting any alternative, see SUR, Pesticide reduction. Now to say that reducing pesticides, damaging fertile soils, damaging our health and all of our water, is a radical measure, I believe, is not what all people here in society want. Please wake up and listen to society and farmers to free them from expensive input! The question is – if you want to have a question: Do you agree with me that farmers should be protected?

Madam President, A black day for the environment and for health, for society and for the liberation of farmers from the agro-industry. (Tumults) However, pursuant to Rule 59(4) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, I would like to request that the report be referred back to the ENVI Committee. (Applause)

Mr President! Yes, this was an exciting discussion, and one wonders as rapporteur whether so many MEPs have actually read the SUR here. Because what you are saying is that there is no flat-rate reduction, neither for individual farmers nor for Member States. There is one exception, that this is reduced, especially for your country, for example. Dear Mr. Liese, you can repeat this ten times with the contract nature protection. It is indeed the case that there is a clause in it that regional reduction programs are recognized in the same way as the SUR. We have, so to speak, expanded the toolbox for farmers and would also like to promote them and would also like to advise them independently in order to free them from expensive input. Because today you do not earn in agriculture, but in agriculture, and I do not understand why you are not willing to do so. Farmers are also part of society, have children, want to stay healthy, want to have fertile soils, healthy water and better soil for future generations. All these flat-rate attacks, which you are saying, may be good for the election campaign, but you should still make sure that we have a responsibility for Europeans, farmers, and not just claim and shout something and scare these people. Our job is to move forward into the future and do something practical and good for everyone. Because only if it is a win-win situation for everyone – for the community, for the farmers, for us, for the children – and then it is fit for the future. We need a reduction in pesticides as a major goal: 50% by 2030. We have to start now. You know it, and it's inside too: If it is not achieved, the Commission can change it. So what are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? Let us all vote together tomorrow for a good SUR and not stay under the SUD like the Agriculture Committee, because then we would not need all these negotiations in the last year and a half. And that will take us to the desert, I'm sure. I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs, the committed citizens and farmers who supported me. And a very small remark, because you always say that: ‘we farmers’. I am a farmer myself, and I want a stable, sustainable agriculture and a life.

Mr Lins, you are talking about protected areas, which should also exist. Could you briefly tell me which protected areas you would like to protect against chemical pesticides? Which ones are they supposed to be? And how do you want to protect them?

Dear Andi Glück, you are talking about total bans. How do you then stand by the immense exception in sensitive areas that all regions with all pesticides are approved in the member countries? Why do we always talk about total bans when they don't exist?

Madam President, Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, ladies and gentlemen! Here we are at last. First of all, I would like to thank all those who have made this debate possible today. Because you know that even this fact that we are voting on an SUR tomorrow is not self-evident. From the outset, there have been very great efforts not to negotiate this SUR at all, very one-sided information – to put it mildly – and no political will to do anything for European women, for Europeans, for our environment, for our health. And that's why I'm happy that I can be here today and look forward to tomorrow's vote with great expectations. Yes, it was a long way. And all this despite the fact that there is a clear consensus among the population that says: We want to reduce pesticides. The risks for the environment and for health, but also for the soil, for our drinking water, have now become intolerable. Almost 82% of respondents from Denmark, Germany, Poland, Spain, Romania and France ask and worry about the environmental impact of pesticides, and 76% worry about their own health, the health of their granddaughters and their daughters, sons, friends, partners. Science supports this as well. You know, there is a letter signed by 6,000 scientists on the SUR and the NRL, in a cross-disciplinary way, to say: We need a pesticide reduction. The pollution of surface waters, declining insect populations, increasing residues of pesticides and, of course, the degradation products that are not even being investigated have become a major problem for humans, animals and our entire world. You'll find pesticides themselves in every household dust. If you go to your bedroom today and take a sweeper and have that dust inspected, then I guarantee you will find pesticides in it. But not only in house dust are pesticides, but also in our breast milk, in our uterus, in our blood. There are about 100,000 different environmental toxins, and now is the time to start with an actual serious reduction. We must finally protect the long-term consequences for health, biodiversity and our ecosystems and natural resources. Because we also have a responsibility – not only for our neighbours, but also for our children, for future generations and for our grandchildren. However, we also have a problem protecting our food safety, which is jeopardised by limiting biodiversity. Today, once again, and tomorrow, nothing at all, is not a solution. This is not a path we want to take. That's why I have to be very clear: Continuing as before threatens our existence, threatens our food safety, our livelihoods, and not the SUR or the NRL, as it has often been reported. Studies also show that pesticides are economic nonsense. Absolute nonsense! They cost more than you spend on what you earn as a profit. The toolkit proposed by the European Commission, the IPM toolkit, which can reduce the use of pesticides in an agroecological way, not only saves environmental toxins, but even then brings more money to the stock exchange. This is something where farmers have to clap their hands and say: Wonderful, we want to get rid of it. We are doing something for the health, for the society that wants it, and for our own financial situation. Oh, I've already overdrawn. So, I ask you to vote tomorrow in the spirit of a strong SUR, so that we can take into account the wishes of Europeans.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say quite clearly here: Reducing pesticide use, implementing integrated pest management and restoring nature are in the interests of farmers. Why? Quite simply: Restoration of nature, of vital ecological systemic services such as soil quality, pollination, water quality, pest control, etc., contributes to a healthy, productive and resilient food system. Agroecological practices increase farmers' incomes, reduce the cost of external expensive inputs and make them more independent of the agricultural industry. This creates profitable, long-term sustainable and stable food systems. Farmers and their families and all those living in agricultural areas are particularly exposed to the health effects of pesticides. These include various types of cancer – non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer –, neurological disorders, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cardiovascular disease, developmental delays in children, adverse effects on reproductive capacity and cognitive disorders. So let's tackle together and go together with our farmers the way towards sustainability, because ... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! You've heard it all here today. I too want to blow into that same horn. PFAS are everywhere, they are eternal chemicals, we can't get rid of them anymore. But they are also a man-made product, and they are, for example, in frying pans, as has also been mentioned, in food packaging material, but also on pizza cartons, so that the pizza does not soup through. So with a lot of meals, we eat one bite, one bite, one My Poison, which is deposited in our blood, in our blood plasma, as the German Environment Agency has now found in 2020 in blood plasma samples from 3- to 17-year-olds, namely that in the 3- to 17-year-olds in 100% of the blood plasma samples PFOS and in 86% of the samples PFOA were found – despite the fact that these substances were already banned in 2009 and 2019 respectively. Now the moment has come. We hear that there are more and more environmental toxins. And the time has really come to act decisively. I would like to support the Commission in not being chased into the fenugreek by an industry that does not have our health in mind and cannot foresee this environmental damage in a long time. So please move forward with the revision of REACH as soon as possible and think about health, the environment and our children.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, of course, I would like to congratulate the initiators for this great citizens' initiative. It is a remarkable achievement that they have achieved, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, they were successful and launched this initiative. But I very much regret that it is precisely the people who are responsible for this today who cannot take part in this debate. This European Citizens' Initiative is coming at just the right time. It has already been mentioned: We have the current state of science, which shows that climate change, biodiversity, environmental degradation is one of the greatest threats to our food system and therefore also to agriculture, and that is to say, to farmers. We need a sustainable food system, and so there is an urgent need to talk about the transformation of how we do it. It is our job to encourage farmers to tell them: There are solutions, everyone is on the table. In the end, agro-ecological measures bring more money to the farmers in the purse. That's what we always say. So why not go, why not bring these methods, which work hand in hand with nature, among the people and strengthen and enlighten them? Because our farmers need more independence from expensive resources and more money in the purse. This is also possible without arable poisons, as is also shown by organic farming, which also has problems with drifting, very often especially in South Tyrol. So the economic model of one destroys the economic model of the other, and that too is a major problem to which we must find answers. I'm not talking about the health that affects all of us. You know, in France and Italy, Parkinson's disease and certain cancers are an occupational disease for farmers. On the topic of the feasibility of pesticide reduction, the initiators have also done a lot of work and put together a fact check. Please look all in your mailbox, yesterday it was delivered to you by e-mail. I urge everyone to read it carefully. And we should also all take to heart the appeal to continue working on the SUR constructively and without tactical delay. That's due now.

Madam President, I have no question, just a remark: As a beekeeper, I will look closely at what you want to do about pollinators. You are not only responsible for our food, but you are also responsible for a hopefully good and toxin-free honey.

Dear Madam President, Dear Commissioner, thank you for making yourself available for this exchange. They have full support in the farm-to-fork strategy, because we know it's rushing and it's burning: The cost of inaction increases every year. As far as pesticides are concerned, this is the case: The more pesticides we apply, the more they not only harm soil health, not only our own microbiome, but they also simply harm the environment, the environment, the water, the air, the animals, the pollinators. That's why it's so important for us to be clear: What is sustainable agriculture, what does sustainability mean? And this is certainly not the use of any chemical pesticide and certainly not of highly dangerous pesticides. I don't know if you know that there are French studies that have done 80% pesticide reduction and found that there are no yield losses. There are even studies from Italy that still do not find any loss of yield with a 95% reduction in neonicotinoids. This clearly shows: We have an overuse of pesticides. That's why my question is: Are you going to do something about it? Will you stand by your word? Will this SUD and the objectives of the Farm-to-Fork Are they really pushing you forward? And it will be Sustainable use of pesticides Did it really come before the summer?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, It's been a long way to get here, you all know that. First of all, I wanted to thank the consultants – Zoë and Juliette, Vivian and Jana – and Tilly Metz from AGRI and all the other shadow rapporteurs and rapporteurs – so much time has to be taken. As expected, we had a lot of disagreements, had to cross many bridges on both sides to reach this compromise. And we did it. We very much welcome the fact that we now have a compromise that could, of course, be better for everyone as they look into the world – some wanted more, some wanted less, some didn't want any change at all, as we know. As Greens, we welcome this goal because we need a sustainable food strategy and we need profound change – we all know that. At the same time, however, it is scandalous with what pressure the AGRI lobby has tried here to change and turn and enforce the Farm to Fork strategy, to make separate votes – more than ever, as we know; You all know the leaks of Copa-Cogeca. Nevertheless, I hope that the Members here show that they are independent, that they think forward-looking, that they know that we need change. We have to act now, and now we have the opportunity to do so. In this respect, I am pleased that tomorrow everyone will vote in favour of these compromises and not for strange separate votes, which have then also been served by a certain lobby. I call on all supporters to make sustainable change truly possible, across the entire retail chain – from farm to fork.