Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-185"

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.19991213.11.1-185"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-13-Speech-1-1862
lpv:speaker	lp:Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2000-02-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is not enough that it cannot be proved that there is any risk from GM foods. There must be clear advantages for consumers, and there must not be any danger to the environment or to animals’ welfare. It is, and remains, the legislators’ task to establish rules and guidelines to ensure that the market develops in such a way that the concerns and requirements of consumers too are taken seriously, and that is not the case with the EU’s labelling requirement. It has already been said many times now that a figure of 1%, set as the threshold value for the adventitious presence of GM materials in food, is way beyond what can and should be accepted as the triviality limit. It is possible to separate GM crops both in the fields at harvest time, in the course of transportation and during processing. This requires a good system of consultation from field to table and, therefore, higher costs too, but it can in fact be done. If, against all expectations, this is not the case, then this is merely another argument for prohibiting the cultivation of GM crops. The next best solution, involving GMO-free labelling, I regard as defeatist, except as a supplementary, voluntary option. Until now, GM foodstuffs have only had advantages for producers. The costs of labelling and supervision should therefore be borne by the producers of GM foods. The risk in eating the products and the long-term consequences for environmental and biological diversity ought to go on being investigated. A direct result of this is the de facto moratorium which five countries have introduced into the EU’s procedure for approving new licences to release genetically modified organisms to the environment and which is to remain in force while the relevant directive is being revised. I am therefore surprised at the reports that Commissioner Wallström does not want to wait for the final revision but has instead backed industry’s offer to comply with the revised GMO Directive even before it is adopted. This is a treacherous attack on the Member States’ moratorium. Moreover, the Council of Ministers’ common position does not go far enough. All I can do, therefore, is call upon the Member States to stick to the moratorium. It is imperative that the GMO legislation should be revised and tightened up – and preferably now rather than in the future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph