Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.11.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I would first like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Trakatellis and Mrs Scheele, but I would also like to extend my thanks for a lively and interesting debate. The proposals we are discussing today are linked to many important and general issues. The public is very concerned over the handling of genetically modified organisms. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that consumers’ health and safety are guaranteed and that the environment and biodiversity are protected. In addition, we must ensure that our citizens have the opportunity to choose for themselves what they want to consume on the basis of reliable information. Therefore, the marketing of genetically modified products must be regulated in a way which allows us to achieve a high level of safety, control and reliability.
The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 16 and 41 which require operators to state exactly which genetically modified organisms are contained in a shipment by stating their unique codes. The Commission also believes that the period for which there should be a requirement to keep information and documentation for the purposes of traceability should be limited to five years. There are no practical reasons for extending this period from five to ten years. This would lead to unnecessary extra burdens on operators. The Commission cannot therefore accept the changes aimed at extending this time period to ten years, i.e. Amendments Nos 17 and 22.
The Commission agrees with the European Parliament that the provisions in this proposal are in line with those in Directive 2001/18/EC and do not limit them in any way. In this context, it is necessary to repeal Article 4.6 of the directive stating that the Member States shall take measures to ensure traceability at all stages of the placing on the market of GMOs. If Article 4.6 is not repealed, it is clear that national measures could run in parallel to the measures covered by the proposal, which would disturb the internal market and lead to legal uncertainty.
Therefore, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 28 and 33, as they retain the traceability requirements in the directive. In the same way, the Commission rejects Amendment No 32, which entails new authorisations being forbidden until unique codes are allocated to genetically modified organisms in line with this proposal. The current Community framework for authorisation already includes a number of conditions for authorising genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food, such as the condition that they must not have damaging effects on public health or the environment. If the existing authorisation criteria are expanded to include the unique codes, as proposed, an element of uncertainty would arise regarding how Community law should be implemented, something which the Commission cannot accept.
Finally, I would like to say a few words on unintentional occurrence and threshold values. One important issue is the unintentional but technically unavoidable occurrence of genetically modified material in conventional products. Genetically modified crops are currently being grown on over 50 million hectares of land around the world. This means that genetically modified material unintentionally and unavoidably occurs in imported products, particularly bulk shipments of grain for food, feed and processing. This is now a practically unavoidable fact. A continued freeze on authorisation in the EU would simply exacerbate the situation, as we would see traces of an increased number of non-EU authorised genetically modified organisms.
Community law already contains regulations concerning the labelling of threshold values for unintentional occurrence. Consequently, it is logical for unintentional occurrence, under specific circumstances, to be exempt from the regulations on labelling and tracing in this proposal too. Setting threshold values is a multifaceted task, and the Commission believes that the most effective solution is to be achieved with a sector-based initiative. Therefore, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 45 and 56, which propose that the competence for establishing threshold values for food, feed or processing be transferred from the proposal concerning food and feed products.
I repeat that the Commission fully supports the principle of establishing threshold values for unintentional occurrence, as proposed in a number of amendments. However, the proposal to include an article establishing such threshold values is, however, more relevant to the proposal concerning genetically modified food and feed.
Madam President, in order to make matters easier, I have collated the Commission’s detailed positions concerning all amendments. This summary will accompany the Verbatim Report of Proceedings.
Finally, I would like to stress that it is in the interests of all of us, including the citizens of Europe, that this proposal enter into force as soon as possible. Comprehensive systems for traceability and labelling are necessary for genetically modified organisms, not only to make it easier to take protective measures if need be, but also to re-establish consumer and public confidence.
Directive 2001/18/EC, the EU Novel Food Regulation and the proposal on genetically modified food and feed have all been developed on the basis of these requirements. Authorisation to place genetically modified products on the market must therefore, in accordance with this legislation and in accordance with the precautionary principle, provide a high level of protection for public health and the environment. The EU system includes the requirement for a comprehensive risk assessment before placing on the market. Traceability makes it easier to implement measures after a product has been placed on the market, for example in terms of monitoring the product or recalling it. It also makes it easier to supply correct information to all the players in the whole production and distribution chain.
This proposal states that genetically modified products are to be monitored at all the stages of placing on the market. It also dictates that products containing genetically modified organisms must be labelled at all the stages of placing on the market. The ultimate aim is for such information to provide consumers and the general public with the opportunity to make their own choices. We believe these measures are an important step on the road to re-establishing consumer and public confidence. The proposal lays down a number of unequivocal responsibilities for operators, without this leading to unnecessary or unreasonable burdens being placed on operators or supervisory authorities.
A number of important issues have been addressed in the amendments put forward by the European Parliament, including the scope of the proposal. The issue of whether products manufactured from animals fed on genetically modified feed are to be covered by the proposal will be addressed in more detail by my colleague, Mr Byrne. However, I would like to state that the Commission considered this issue very carefully in conjunction with drawing up the proposal. After many discussions and consultations, we decided that it would be impossible to implement and would not be in keeping with current Community law. Therefore, the Commission cannot support amendments of this nature.
There are also a number of amendments aimed at restricting the Commission’s proposal. These amendments restrict the traceability requirements to products demonstrably containing DNA and proteins. This would allow relevant labelling of products which have been produced from genetically modified organisms but which no longer contain modified DNA or protein. However, this approach involves a number of restrictions highlighted in the course of our preparatory work. The most important objection is that it would not ensure consumers’ ability to make an informed choice. As such, the Commission cannot accept these amendments.
With regard to the purpose, it is important to remember that although traceability makes it easier to implement any necessary safety measures, it cannot be considered a safety measure in itself. Therefore, the precautionary principle may be applied to legislation concerning authorisation based on risk assessment, but not to the implementation of a traceability system within the framework of this proposal. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 2 and 6 which link the precautionary principle to the proposal.
I would also like to point out that traceability is not a tool for dealing with the issue of co-existence. In the communication on a European strategy for life sciences and biotechnology adopted in January of this year, the Commission undertook to address the issue of co-existence between organic, conventional and genetically modified crops. This proposal only deals with the issue of traceability and labelling for genetically modified organisms. Such traceability and labelling cannot function as an instrument for dealing with co-existence, as this issue requires decisions regarding agricultural production systems. Therefore, the Commission cannot accept the amendments concerning this issue – Amendment No 27 in its entirety and Amendment No 3 in part.
There are further amendments regarding the traceability requirements. With regard to the information to be forwarded to guarantee traceability, it is important to remember that the purpose of traceability for genetically modified organisms is different to that for products manufactured from genetically modified organisms. It is important to be able to identify genetically modified organisms which are to be deliberately planted out in the environment for cultivation, as such products contain viable genetically modified organisms which may multiply and spread. The proposal therefore requires operators to be able to state exactly which genetically modified organisms are present in the products, as well as to forward this information to the operator receiving the products. The potential risks to the environment from products containing genetically modified organisms intended for direct use in food, feed or processing are, however, limited, as these organisms will not be cultivated.
Therefore, the Commission believes it to be both appropriate and sufficient that products containing genetically modified organisms for food, feed or processing, including in bulk shipments, should be accompanied by documentation stating the fact, along with a list of the unique codes for the genetically modified organisms which may conceivably be included in the product or the shipment. These provisions on the supply of information agree with the provisions on transboundary movement in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Commission believes that we should not go further than the provisions in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in order to be able to guarantee harmonised and cohesive procedures in trade with third countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples