Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-258"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.10.2-258"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I think that today the European Parliament is faced with one of its more important debates in the last few years, given that it is dealing with the dangers of the release of genetically modified organisms into our environment. It seems to me that this vote could be a watershed. It would, we hope, give us a new tough set of rules that would ensure that genetically modified crops and other GMO products are used throughout Europe in a safe and sensible way that ensures protection of the environment and guarantees the safety of public health.
The lobbying has become quite intense in the last few weeks. The outcome of the vote in Parliament tomorrow is likely to bring a few shocks and surprises. But it should mean that in six months' time the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission will have arrived at an agreed proposal, at a revised directive for the commercialisation of biotechnological inventions and biotechnological products. That should give biotechnology companies and others involved in the industry a clear idea of the rules that they have adhere to and consequently a more transparent and predictable regime. That can be only good for the future development of this new technology within the European Union.
At the same time, I would hope that our governments will be able to assure their consumers and their people that GMOs released into the environment anywhere in Europe will meet the much more stringent standards that we are fixing here in Parliament tomorrow and that the public concerns regarding the protection of human health and the environment from the dangers of GMO inventions have been properly addressed. And I hope one of the significant non-legislative outcomes of this process will be a shift in the balance of power in the approval and control of GMO crops and food in favour of the public. For the biotechnology industry that can only be to the good. It will create an atmosphere, a situation in which it can work carefully, thoroughly and I hope successfully to make positive use of this very brave new technology that we should all welcome, with the appropriate safeguards.
There are a number of critical issues which need to be addressed. The first and the most important is the issue of producer liability. The European Parliament has long called for legislation which would ensure that companies that want to produce genetically modified organisms would be totally responsible for the products they produce. In other words, under the terms of the amendments, companies would be required to take out insurance to cover any possible damage to human health or the environment caused by GMOs and could be sued if their crops escaped and created super-wheats or contaminated organic crops or if GM crops were found to damage human health.
Regrettably, instead of accepting their full responsibilities, a number of companies have been launching massive campaigns behind the scenes to try and stop this proposal from advancing.
I am in no doubt that when we have the discussion tomorrow many MEPs will be confused and perhaps split in their vote on this issue. I feel that the compromise we have found with the Christian Democrats is one that is viable and workable and I hope it will find support here. At the same time the European Commission can endorse it by giving further reassurances about their own proposals for such a liability measure.
I want to see that European Commission proposals have real teeth when it comes to this Parliament in the not too distant future. In addition to that critical issue there are also a number of other important questions. I hope that tomorrow my colleagues will renew their support, as they did at first reading, for the demands for strong new limits on the use of GMOs containing genes with resistance to antibiotics. Parliament has in the past called for a ban on all GM crops and foods containing such antibiotic-resistant genes, even those used for research.
Tomorrow we may take a softer line, but nevertheless we want to see action in this area. We want to ensure that serious consideration is given to the dangers of using these crops.
Other measures that I think we need – and on which I would seek the support of the Parliament tomorrow – include new measures to restrict the dangers of the cross-breeding of GMO plants with naturally occurring wild relatives. We need to ensure that when products are placed in the field, whether they are plants or whether they are animals, they do not cross-breed and irreparably damage the balance that exists in the natural environment around them.
We must also address an issue which was avoided at first reading, and that is the question of the control of the import and export of GMO crops and other GMO products. Here we need to go to at least as far and perhaps beyond the measures agreed in the Bio-Safety Protocol in Montreal in January. Many people fear the possible consequences of genetic pollution and it is our job to respond to those fears. Those fears have recently been heightened by the discovery of GMO-contaminated cotton-seed imported from the USA into Greece for cotton production, which for the moment at least has no approval at all for commercial planting within the EU but nevertheless has found its way across our borders and into use in at least one Member State.
We have been lobbied by very many groups during the process of developing this legislation. Not just the industry but also Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have given their backing to various aspects of Parliament's report. They have supported us in continuing to press the Council of Ministers to agree on new GMO rules on licensing as quickly as possible, to bring to an end the
moratorium on new GMO commercial approvals, which has been in operation since the Commission published its proposal almost two years ago."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples