Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-134"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010214.4.3-134"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-14-Speech-3-1352
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (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	". The final version of the new directive on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) certainly has some good points, such as improved controls, public registers, the gradual elimination of antibiotic-resistant gene markers etc. Nevertheless, it allows for consent to be granted for mass cultures and, in my view, does not apply the precautionary principle in full. The debate illustrated the considerable risks from GMOs without throwing up any definitive or persuasive arguments to the contrary. We refer to the risks to public health (allergies, increased resistance to antibiotics, possible toxicity), and, in more general terms, to the ecosystems in which GMOs are released (threat to biodiversity etc.). Add to this the fact that current knowledge on GMOs is still – and generally admitted to be – inadequate, in that there is no systematic or confirmed information on how the overall genetic material introduced into the gene acts and develops. ‘Accidents’ or ‘surprises’ have already been recorded in specific cases of this sort of genetic manipulation in the USA, Australia and elsewhere. Even the Council's common position was adopted despite the fact that Member States such as France, Italy and Denmark stated that they felt that a new five-year moratorium was needed. All this reinforces our reservations and our belief that, quite apart from the need to strengthen controls and monitoring, the time has not yet come to legalise the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. Furthermore, we are by no means convinced that GMOs can contribute to agricultural productivity and development; we are barely even convinced that they can help reduce certain pesticides, as is already being stated in American studies on a large number of areas cultivated with GMOs. Clearly, one of the main reasons for insisting on the dissemination of GMOs is that it gives certain companies the opportunity to register patents and exclusive rights to varieties containing GMOs, as the Italian Minister of Agricultural Policy recently remarked in the Italian press. It is for these reasons that we are unable to vote in favour of the common position on the new directive on GMOs."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph