Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Deliberate release of GMOs into the environment2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.7.2-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-1422
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	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; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we in the Group of the European United Left wish to retain the moratorium on releasing genetically modified crops for commercial cultivation. This position is not changed by the clear improvements due to Directive 90/220 and which we are now discussing. In the conciliation, it was, in particular, we in the Group of the European United Left, together with the Greens, who fought for the improvements which have now in fact been made, for example the gradual elimination of antibiotic-resistant markers, greater transparency and better risk assessments. We have also achieved at least a half victory when it comes to public registers of GMOs, but it is still very unclear whether the Member States really see themselves as being obliged to report publicly on all GMOs cultivated for commercial purposes. Clarification from the Council of Ministers and the Commission is needed on this matter. It is not advisable to adopt laws on matters about which, right from the beginning, there are different interpretations. We have still not seen the new rules promised to us by the Commission and required for labelling, traceability and accountability. Until we know what they look like and until they have been fully implemented, we cannot contemplate lifting the moratorium. Nor do we believe that, when the moratorium is lifted, it should be possible for any Member State to be forced to cultivate genetically modified crops. We consider the strategy devised by the Commission whereby new crops are to be approved before these rules are fully in place to be objectionable and contrary to the precautionary principle. It is also significant that there is a desire here to pre-empt the reading in Parliament and in the Council of Ministers. There is now no demand for genetically modified food in the European Union. More and more parts of the world are abandoning GM crops. There are major differences of opinion between researchers about the risks involved in GM crops. This applies both to the risk of contaminating other species and to possible effects on human health. To insist, in this situation, upon the cultivation of more GM crops for commercial purposes would be foolhardy and lead to a very great deal of opposition. Recent scandals and problems involving food policy ought to have taught us to proceed carefully. The interests of consumers and the precautionary principle must be allowed to take precedence over the commercial interests of a few large companies. We want to retain the moratorium on commercial cultivation. There is a risk that the revision of this directive may be taken by the Commission as a pretext for approving new GM crops for cultivation. That is not something to which can be a party. In spite of the fact that, in the conciliation, our group has had an important role to play in making these rules as tough as possible, we cannot vote in favour of the final result."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"we"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph