Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-133"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.4.3-133"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
When it comes to genetic modification, the choice now seems to be between maintaining the old regulation, which is inadequate I know, but which does not pose a risk because it includes a moratorium, and a new regulation, which is slightly better but does not guarantee the continued existence of the moratorium. I made the point in Tuesday’s debate on this subject that the real choice is quite different. One possibility is to permit commercial applications, accept uncontrollable changes in nature and promote the sale of new products with a still unknown risk to unwitting consumers. The other possibility is to extend the moratorium on commercial applications, whilst scientific research alone is conducted in the meantime. This scientific research will be necessary for a long time to come, in order to chart what the potential, long-term positive and negative effects of genetic modification will be. I would go for the latter option, but that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what is being put to the vote today. As I see it, the majority of Members of the Group of the European United Left, as well as the majority of Members of the Green Group, have allowed themselves to be thrown into confusion due to this lack of choice, which will now lead to abstentions. My party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, thinks that is no kind of solution. Hence I will vote against the proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples