Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-184"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Labelling of foodstuffs produced using GMOs2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991213.11.1-184"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-13-Speech-1-1852
lpv:speaker	lp:Torben Lund2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Socialdemokratiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 treasurer; PES (1999-07-20--2001-05-13)3
lpv:translated text	"I should like first of all to say that the proposed 1% limit is actually, in my view, a sign of capitulation. It is in fact a very striking result of the fact that, for years, we have seen a lack of overview and cohesion in GMO legislation. We have not made the necessary demands when it comes to distinguishing between GM material and non-GM material. We are therefore now forced to accept a certain quantity of GM materials in all produce, without our being informed as consumers about these. For the citizens of Europe, this really is quite a depressing development in terms of consumer policy. I can support the present motion for a resolution, but I also think it is worth emphasising that the 1% limit set by the Commission is definitely too high. It opens the way to carelessness and indifference on the part of suppliers and producers. There is every reason for thinking that the limit will be eroded in future. I should therefore like to request four things of the Commission. Firstly, that a lower triviality limit than 1% be set. If this is not desired, then a one-year review clause, as proposed here by Parliament, might at any rate be agreed to, in anticipation of reducing the triviality limit. Thirdly, the claim of adventitious contamination due to GM materials must be carefully defined. This is a very elastic concept that has been built into the proposal here, and I believe it needs to be defined very clearly. Fourthly, and finally, I would ask that a very efficient supervisory system be established so that we might counter the worst examples of carelessness in this sphere. I hope that Commissioner Liikanen will be able to respond positively to these four questions and requests."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph