Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposed regulation on which I am the rapporteur concerns the authorisation and labelling of genetically modified food and feed, and should of course be regarded as closely connected with the regulation on traceability. Like many others, including the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I welcome the Commission proposal on the future scope of labelling equivalent products, that is products made from genetically modified ingredients, where the genetic change in the end product is no longer in evidence. That is a great advance in Community lawmaking, and one that responds to the desires of consumers over many years.
This change will also lead to the labelling of a range of foods which do not at present have to be labelled. Current laws stipulate that oil can consist of 100% genetically modified maize without needing to be labelled as such. The traceability system makes such labelling possible. As we have just seen, discussions are carried on as if this were the first piece of legislation giving consumers information evidence for the value of which is not capable of being provided by processes of analysis, but the EU already has legislation, such as the required indication of origin for many foods, for example fruit and vegetables, that are founded on documents, which are an effective traceability system.
In order to ensure maximum freedom of choice for consumers, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy also calls for the labelling of animal products and enzymes. Having, albeit from outside, followed discussions in the Council, we are under no illusions: it is highly unlikely that this will form part of this piece of legislation. However, I really do think it necessary to continue with policy discussions on these issues and see what ripples arise when we throw some stones in. The one thing that is clear is that this item of legislation will certainly not lay to rest the issue of whether enzymes and animal products have to be labelled.
Together with the labelling issue, there have always been discussions as to whether products should be certified as being "not genetically engineered", and I have said that I could accept this as a supplement, but never as an alternative. This particular topic gave rise to discussions in the Committee on the Environment, in which members said they would send back what the Commission had submitted, and wanted only a "not genetically engineered" label.
The Commission proposal envisages a threshold value for contamination that is technically unavoidable and occurs by chance. No doubt we are all agreed that such a threshold value is needed. It has to be made clear at this point that this threshold value applies specifically to technically unavoidable contamination of this kind. It is often asserted, and I have read in numerous newspaper articles, that the European Union is now deciding to require labelling only above 0.5% or even 1%, which is of course nonsense.
Neither I nor the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy find it acceptable that such threshold values should also apply to those GMOs that are not permitted in the Community. As regards the amount of the threshold value, I hope that the majority of the whole House will support Amendments Nos 162 to 164, which my group has introduced and which lay down a threshold value of 0.5%, requiring also that the threshold value should be lower if progress in science and technology so permits.
The Committee has adopted two further points that I have again brought up, which have to do with the centralisation of the authorisation procedure, but also with the role to be played by the national authorities, especially in relation to environmental impact assessments, which the Commission proposal stipulates should in future be carried out by the European Food Safety Authority. I do not consider this to be adequate and, not wishing to nullify the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants, which was enacted as recently as 2001, want to leave the responsibility for this in the hands of the competent authorities in the Member States. Several of my amendments, furthermore, concern themselves with strengthening the public's right to information, and I hope that the great majority in the plenary will support these as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has done."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples