Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.6.4-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, of course the questions and the statistics by our Green colleagues are loaded and selective. Can I therefore ask if the Commission agrees that a Eurobarometer survey shows that 75% of Europeans favour basic research aimed at new technologies which help knowledge to progress? Is it true that, according to Eurobarometer surveys, 48% of Europeans agree or strongly agree that GM is useful in food production for improved nutrition and for improving shelf life or taste, despite the emotive campaign by the Greens to convince them of the contrary?
Not only are these campaigns emotionally charged, they muster distorted and misleading information to support their ultimately untenable and irrational opposition to the new technology of genetically modified crops. I wish they would be honest enough to recognise that there are at least some benefits.
I believe that these actual benefits, not to mention the potential benefits, substantially outweigh any risks. Yes, there are always potential risks in any new technology product or process. We are challenging the frontiers of knowledge, but we have safeguards in place. We require exhaustive testing and trials in laboratory and field. But the opponents do not want proof. They condone obstruction and destruction of these trials. Will they deny that GM crops have major environmental benefits? Not only do they reduce production costs, they also cut back on the use of energy, pesticides and herbicides and reduce CO2 emissions. Though their opponents are still grasping at straws, it is clear from experience in America and elsewhere that the environment benefits.
In Europe we can perhaps afford the luxury of denying ourselves the food productivity benefits which GM crops offer, but do our Green colleagues not consider the interests of their fellow human beings in sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia to whom GM crops will bring nutrition and health benefits and may even help them survive? Do they consider the effect that turning our backs on this advance will have on our scientific base and researchers, on our farmers and farm workers' jobs? On thousands of jobs in the food processing industry? On the price of food as well as the quality and the variety available to our consumers?
Yes, European consumers are entitled to be able to choose what food they buy and eat. We must protect our environment as best we can, but we also owe it to our constituents to be frank and honest about the risks and benefits. It is accepted that an organic label indicates 95% organic, i.e. up to 5% not organic. Why make the non-GMO label almost unobtainable by specifying unachievable levels of purity? I could well accept that premise, with the mischievous intention of making non-GMO so rare that no one could afford it. Then everyone will be forced to come to terms with the real world, where there will always be the possibility of some adventitious GM content."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples