home Local News Glyphosate: Why Saint-Malo MP Gilles Lurton Did Not Vote against its Ban

Glyphosate: Why Saint-Malo MP Gilles Lurton Did Not Vote against its Ban

Gilles Lurton, MP for Saint-Malo, refused to include in the law the ban on glyphosate. He explains the reasons for his vote:

After another heated debate in the National Assembly on glyphosate , the result remained unchanged: the ban on the controversial herbicide within three years will not be enshrined in law . So decided the deputies in the night of Friday 14th to Saturday 15th September, 2018.

Gilles Lurton , the member for Saint-Malo (7th district of Ille-et-Vilaine), is among those who did not vote “the inclusion in the law of its prohibition.” He decided to explain and fully assume his position in a statement sent yesterday, Tuesday 18th September, to our editorial staff.

Healthy, sustainable and accessible to all

“I fully subscribe to the goal of the President of the Republic to make the ban on glyphosate effective in France in three years and I made it clear during the discussion on the bill for the balance of commercial relations in the United States. agricultural and food sector and a healthy, sustainable and accessible food for all (EGAlim).
However, should this prohibition be included in the law?
I do not think so.

First of all because it is a decision of the European Commission which has authorised the use of this product for five years and that we must today convince the Commission to reduce this duration so as not to not put our agriculture in a situation of unfair competition. 
Then, last June, when we examined this text in first reading, the Minister of Agriculture and Food had committed to launch a consultation procedure with all agricultural professions but also with all scientific and economic partners such as INRA, IRSTEA and ACTA to make possible the ban of glyphosate in three years.
On this basis, I had already voted against the inclusion of this commitment in the law last June, because I think that such registration is counterproductive compared to the work currently being carried out by the Government but also by the parliamentary commission we created for this purpose.



“Through concertation, not constraint”

Last week, at second reading, I again questioned the Minister on the progress of this consultation and the working conditions with the European Commission to reduce the period from five years to three years. The answers I received show that things are changing and that today, everyone, including farmers, recognises the need to stop the use of this hazardous product.
This evolution, we obtained it by the consultation, and not by the constraint. As a parliamentarian, I fully recognise myself in this work.
Although I do not belong to the government majority, I fully subscribe to the work currently being done by the Minister of Agriculture and I pledge to follow this file day after day. If within a few weeks, I realised that things were not going to change, I would also take my responsibilities and introduce a bill to ban glyphosate. But I still believe in concertation to achieve this.

“I fully assume my vote”

MP Lambert, who was behind one of the amendments calling for the ban to be enacted, recognised that my position is good but called it inaudible. Maybe he is right! But it is up to me to decide what seems to me the most effective to achieve this presidential goal of prohibition even if I know that my choice is subject to criticism even insults!
I fully accept my vote. Perhaps the simplest solution would have been not to participate in this debate and to be absent. It is not my conception of the role entrusted to me by the constituents of Saint-Malo.

Leave a Reply