Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.4.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The new directive on deliberate release of GMOs aspired to “include all direct and indirect ecological aspects”. I have to remark that the end result is still a long way from the stated objectives and that the niggling issues have been brushed aside.
Therefore, the issue of environmental liability covering damage resulting from GMOs has been postponed to a later date, as has consideration of potential cumulative long-term effects associated with the interaction of various GMOs. It is clear that we are allowing the release of GMOs in agriculture without being fully aware of the risks that we are taking and without knowing who shall be held legally responsible for the damage either.
The authors of the directive express doubts, proving once again that a moratorium must be imposed on the production of GMOs, for ecological and public health reasons. By merely attempting a half-hearted restriction on the release of GMOs, the directive denies the need for a moratorium, and that is the main reason why I am voting against the report. Furthermore, the social and democratic implications of the spread of GMOs are clearly understood; spreading GMOs strengthens the domination of the agro-industry over farmers and consumers. As such, the directive gives more than a fair share to big business and that is the second reason why I am voting against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples