Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why do we need genetically modified plants? If we modify a few genetic building blocks, plants are apparently better adapted to adverse environmental influences, such as attacks by pests or competition from weeds. They become more resistant. Far fewer herbicides and insecticides are needed. There is less environmental pollution. From the point of view of quality and nutritional value, genetically modified foods are absolutely identical to conventional foods. That is guaranteed through comprehensive testing.
There are widely differing views in Parliament on the present Commission proposals on traceability and labelling. We know that. But we are all agreed on one point: the proposals have been poorly dealt with. We fail to understand why the Commission has no wish to include everything in a single regulation. A comprehensive, uniform regulation could then have included seed, which at present – and again we fail to understand why – is handled under the comitology procedure, thereby more or less excluding Parliament.
However, these shortcomings notwithstanding, we have no desire to reject the Commission proposals because any further delay would be very bad for the status of genetically modified products within the EU and the de facto moratorium which has applied for several years would remain in place.
The purpose of the Commission's two proposals is to guarantee that consumers have clear, truthful information about genetically modified organisms in food and feed. Of course, I too am unreservedly in favour of comprehensive information for consumers. That goes without saying. But we can only achieve this sort of information if we make sure that only products that really contain GMOs are labelled as such, with the need for scientific proof, with genetically modified DNA or protein or perhaps other new analytical methods in the future, as our prime requirement. This sort of product-related labelling is the only feasible way forward. The Commission proposal is barking up the wrong tree here. So-called process-based labelling of food and feed, with no facility to prove genetic modification in the end product is simply not practicable and is inviting fraud. Europe would be inundated with a flood of supposed scandals and consumer confidence in our high quality food – and it is high quality – would be shaken even further, and needlessly so.
For the same reason, then, we should reject the idea of extending labelling requirements to animal products such as meat, eggs and milk products from animals which have come into contact with genetically modified feed at some point. This sort of labelling requirement would be just as perplexing as a labelling requirement for food produced using genetically produced or modified aids such as enzymes because, in both cases, the food itself is not genetically modified in any way and is no different from conventional produce.
Exactly the same applies to highly refined products such as edible oils or sugar. There is demonstrably no longer any genetic modification in the product. So why label it?
This sort of procedure, labelling every product which has no more than glanced at a GMO, would run counter to the idea of consumer enlightenment and information. Nearly every food product would have to be labelled "manufactured using or from GMOs".
Another key question is the threshold for the accidental or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in products. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, the threshold value for the accidental and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs was reduced from the 1% in the Commission proposal to 0.5%. The PPE-DE group voted against this, although we are all agreed that this threshold value is a purely political value and has no scientific basis. However, even as a political value, it has to have a practicable, a feasible basis. And, with a lower limit of 1%, the feasibility threshold is more than satisfied. A threshold value of 0.5% simply cannot be complied with at present. It would be a blocking value, a blocking threshold.
However, on this point, and this too has to be said, the Commission proposal was very poorly formulated. Of course it will generate unease if there is talk of banning GMOs in the EU. It smacks of selling out. Basically, this threshold is a necessary tolerance value, especially in the transition phase, for GMOs which, because of the de facto moratorium, may not yet have been licensed but which have certainly been tested in the EU by the relevant scientific committees and have proven to be harmless to human health and the environment. They are ready to be licensed; they are in a holding pattern. The term we should be using is "preauthorised" and I for one shall endeavour to get this term adopted in the legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples