Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010315.4.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the rapporteur displays too optimistic a view of biotechnology. Based on a one-sided industry-oriented approach he calls on us to support the biotechnology industry. That is understandable from his perspective, in which the aim of Europe is to create wealth and employment. However, I have a number of peripheral comments to make.
Because of the above misgivings, I am unable to support the report. Economic motives must not dominate moral considerations. Europe, which claims to be a community of values, should show greater sensibility in dealing with this question.
There is no sign in the report of a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of biotechnology. The rapporteur calls the development of biotechnology good for the environment, the quality of food, health and the developing countries. However, it is very doubtful whether the developing countries will benefit. Probably they will become more dependent on the mainly Western suppliers of seed and pesticides. After all, food provision, besides being a problem of technological and biological shortcomings, is mainly a distribution issue. Unfortunately, the rapporteur imputes an exemplary function to the United States. Biotechnological agriculture there announced that it can no longer guarantee that its products are GMO-free because of cross-pollination.
Information on biotechnology should also reflect an even-handed balance. Leaving it to the sector leads to an entanglement of ethics and economic interests.
Ethical decisions should be taken as close as possible to the level of the citizen. That also applies to the direction of development in biotechnology. The report, on the other hand, instructs the Member States even on financial support, tax measures, education and immigration.
In addition, it is premature for the rapporteur to call upon Member States to agree with a patent on life, to which there are ethical and legal objections, such as conflict with international treaties. The Netherlands and Great Britain have appealed to the Court and it is better to wait for the judgment.
The report gives responsibility for authorising GMOs to the European Food Authority. However, the latter has only an advisory function. Politicians remain responsible for the decisions.
Policy for the biotechnology industry in the European Union should be based on the views of the Member States. In the light of this poor coordination, it is telling that this report should appear before the temporary Committee on Human Genetics has reported on the matter.
Apart from that, it is odd that Europe, usually averse to state aid, should be calling upon the Member States to support an industrial sector. It is unclear for what reason this industrial sector deserves to receive support.
At this stage it would have been better if the report had been restricted to cross-border industrial aspects, such as development barriers or a survey of options within the various possible policy directions, without simply advocating support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples