Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.4.3-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Once again, I refused to approve the draft directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as it stands following the work of the Conciliation Committee of the Council and the European Parliament. I also refused to approve it at its first two readings in the European Parliament, which were held on 11 February 1999 and 12 April 2000. Quite apart from the strategic reason that I already explained in the course of the main debate (we risk being duped if we accept the implementation of an authorisation procedure and then, tomorrow, the moratorium is lifted without further guarantees), the content of this text, in our opinion, still appears to be far from satisfactory.
Admittedly, we noted that some progress has been made on the timetable for the gradual elimination of antibiotic-resistant markers in GMOs. However, there are still some disturbing grey areas. First of all, no progress has been made on the issue of liability or any requirement for those who release GMOs to take out insurance. The Commission has merely made a rather vague promise to “bring forward proposals”, but these certainly will not be regarding the requirement for insurance, which neither the Commission nor the GMO producers want. Furthermore, authorisations for placing products onto the market are based on a ten-year period, which is far too long, and this is Parliament’s fault, since it has let itself be influenced by pressure groups. The national safeguard clause in Article 23 is too weak, as a Member State may find itself bound by an authorisation for placing products onto the market that would be valid throughout the European Community.
To sum up, of all these disheartening provisions, we support those which are concerned with keeping the public informed, i.e. notifying the relevant authorities of the locations where GMO crops are grown for commercial purposes and having these locations “made known to the public in a manner deemed appropriate by the authorities”. In other words, in this matter, there will be no requirement to give honest and open information. This policy of restricting information reminds us of the method the Commission already used at the beginning of the 1990s, when the mad cow epidemic was spreading. There is no doubt that the European authorities are repeat offenders."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples