Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the issue of genetically modified crops and food can be viewed from several different angles. For our group, the important factors are biodiversity, the environment, health and food safety. It is also a question of consumers’ fundamental right to be able to choose what they buy and what they eat. In addition, the issue can be viewed in terms of power. The power over our food and crops lies to a large extent with multinational companies which sometimes sell genetically modified seeds which are directly dependent on their own pesticides. All these reasons may explain why consumers wish to choose something other than GM products.
There is no scientific agreement on the benefits of GM technology in the area of food. The technology is controversial and our knowledge of the field is growing rapidly. In particular, there is uncertainty regarding the impact on biodiversity and possible effects for people with allergies. Therefore, the precautionary principle must be applied, and we support Member States’ right to impose a moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops.
When the Commission has acted to modernise the European Union’s policy in this area, regulations for traceability, labelling and corporate responsibility have formed the basis for the policy. We believe that, in line with this and as a minimum requirement, no commercial growing of GM crops should be allowed before these changes have been made and introduced into national legislation.
In terms of labelling and traceability, the starting point must be the creation of a comprehensive system which provides consumers with the right to choose. This means that goods produced with the help of GM products, such as meat produced with GM feed, must also be labelled. The addition of remains from proscribed GM products must naturally also not be allowed. With regard to the unintentional addition of remains from GM crops, the threshold should be as low as possible. We believe that the proposal of 0.5 percent is far too high, but it may be a starting point for future reductions.
It is remarkable that those who usually defend consumers’ freedom of choice in the market now do not wish to provide consumers with this freedom through the effective labelling of GM food. Could it be the case that people realise that most consumers would exercise their freedom of choice by not choosing GM products?
A labelling system for GM-free products would be a considerably worse solution than that currently proposed. Such a system is based on the assumption that genetically modified food is the rule and that GM-free food is the exception. We would like to see the reverse assumption prevailing.
We know that on this issue there is strong pressure from industry and from certain national governments to vote against the line taken by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I would appeal to Members of this House to accept their responsibility for the environment and consumers and to support the line taken on this issue by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and not to give in either to industry or to 10 Downing Street."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples