Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010315.5.4-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The resolution which the European Parliament has adopted following the Purvis report on the future of the biotechnology sector seems to us to be too soothing, and often even full of pitfalls. This is why the Movement for France delegation has not voted.
The resolution, particularly in paragraph 32, attempts to amalgamate the issue of genetic engineering in the medical sector with the issue of biotechnology in the agricultural sector, perhaps in order to make the latter more acceptable. In reality, although both cases involve manipulating genes, the problems that arise are different. In medicine, it is a question of helping certain individuals whose lives would be seriously compromised if they were not given such treatment. In agriculture, on the other hand, the target is broad, or even undefined and infinite, since it involves setting in motion production methods which may affect the environment in general or the health of millions of consumers.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that genetic engineering in the medical field gives rise to ethical problems which are more serious than those elsewhere, and we note that the Purvis resolution, in paragraph 61, takes cover behind pious generalities, while avoiding specifically tackling the problem that is currently the most urgent: that of cloning for therapeutic purposes.
When voting took place, Parliament did not wish to ask directly for the abolition of the de facto
moratorium on the authorisation of genetically modified organisms. Nevertheless, it adopted a paragraph 34, which ‘regrets government actions to block or delay authorisation of GM products for reasons not based on objective scientific opinion’, which may amount to the same thing, depending on what one understands by the phrase ‘objective scientific opinion’. We would feel more reassured if the resolution had clearly said which government, in its opinion, was holding up these authorisations in such a blameworthy fashion.
Another defect in this resolution is the fact that in paragraph 36 it congratulates itself on the subject of the agreement drawn up a month ago between Parliament and the Council, on the procedure for authorising GMOs. Yet we ourselves criticised that agreement, on the grounds that it establishes authorisation procedures without establishing traceability, liability or compulsory insurance on the part of distributors. Admittedly, the resolution also calls for testing and labelling guarantees, but Amendment No 6, which lays down liability and insurance obligations, was rejected.
Finally, as if this were not enough, the resolution calls for the European Food Safety Authority to be responsible for authorising GMOs, which we totally disagree with, because we would like each State to retain the right of international safeguard in this important field."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples