Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-254"

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	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.10.2-254"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-2552
lpv:speaker	lp:Dorette Corbey2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we have already talked a great deal about genetic modification here in Parliament. Some of us believe that biotechnology has a glorious future ahead, whilst others are sceptical and point to the dangers, the risks and the scientific uncertainty. Parliament has three tasks when it comes to the issues surrounding GMOs, the first being to create a vision. A vision that points the way and is broadly based. That is precisely what Parliament has had such a struggle with. The parliamentary majority swings back and forth between the position of NGOs and that of the business community. Given the polarisation of opinion, sound admission procedures are a must, i.e. procedures that guarantee safety, afford the consumer and the environment protection and uphold the precautionary principle. The review of Directive 90/220 strikes a good balance, the best in the world in fact. I think that we, together with the rapporteur, can be proud of the negotiated outcome. Our second task is to take decisions and to foster decision making. We must put an end to all the legal uncertainty within the industry. A tricky situation has arisen within the industry in recent years. There is a moratorium but no decision has ever been taken to this effect. We must make a breakthrough here, but this will only be possible if there are sufficient safeguards for consumers and if we can offer them legal certainty. Consumers must have a choice and the Commission must provide guarantees to this effect. Parliament’s third task is to take responsibility. If we want to give the go-ahead, then we must also be prepared to take the responsibility that goes with it. Why not give ourselves some encouragement by pointing out that the old situation was worse and that it will be possible for there to be a moratorium in the new situation. But as I see it, we must also have the courage to say that with this directive, we have incorporated sufficient safeguards to give biotechnology a chance in Europe. Each product must be examined in order to ascertain whether it satisfies requirements, but our responsibility goes further than that. Parliament must continue to press for a form of monitoring of the social implications of biotechnology. The assessment must not be restricted to matters of safety alone. The usefulness to society of biotechnological inventions must form part of the assessment carried out by governments and the business community, so that we can go a step beyond the safety aspect. This will benefit consumers all over the world, as well as industry."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph