Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this draft regulation seeks to guarantee a high level of protection for human life and health, animal health and welfare and the interests of the environment and consumers in connection with genetically modified food and feed. The high level of protection for human health and also environmental interests is achieved by means of a very demanding authorisation procedure. This needs to be said right at the outset, because many Members continue to confuse this with health concerns in connection with the limit value for adventitious and unavoidable contamination that we will be discussing later.
If I may start with authorisation, the placing on the market of genetically modified food and feed will only be permitted after an independent and stringent assessment of their possible risks to human and animal health as well as to the environment. In the future, the assessment will be carried out by the European Food Safety Authority, while the authorisation will be granted by the Commission. In its first reading, Parliament called for a greater degree of decentralisation. We have had only limited success here. One point that is important for us, and which has also been taken on board by the Council, provides that the environmental risk assessment for seed will be carried out by the Member States' authorities.
Turning to labelling, I am very pleased that the consumer-friendly system of labelling genetically modified food and feed has been accepted. As you will remember, at this time last year we had a very controversial and also very emotional debate in this House. I have been able – and as rapporteur this does of course make me very proud – even in the face of opposition from the largest group in this House, that of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, to gain acceptance for a very consumer-friendly system.
At this time last year we also discussed the possibility of having a GMO-free label. I was and still am strongly opposed to this. However, the question no longer arises in the second reading, because it was already answered in the first reading. I should simply like to remind you once more that we know from numerous studies and surveys that a majority of European consumers want to know when foods contain genetically modified ingredients.
A further aspect of this legislation that constitutes significant progress – something that is always forgotten because of the other hotly contested points – is the labelling requirement that is imposed for the first time on genetically modified feed, particularly when you consider that a large proportion of the genetically modified organisms imported by the European Union are used as feed.
One of the most controversial issues in this debate is the question of thresholds. Here too, I should like to correct something at the outset. I know that it will not do any good, because the Members who repeatedly make this claim have already written their speeches, but I should nonetheless like to say this once more. This 0.9% threshold does not relate to a conscious use of genetically modified organisms, where people might say, 'it is only labelled above 0.9%'. It is a necessary threshold for technically unavoidable and adventitious contamination. In its first reading, Parliament set it at 0.5%, and the Council is now proposing 0.9%.
At second reading, I have focused on the issue of coexistence, which clearly affects how we are going to retain different forms of agriculture in Europe in the future, but is also directly related to consumer choice. I wanted European legislation to be logical; if genetically modified organisms are authorised centrally then the rules for coexistence should also be laid down centrally. There was no majority in favour of this. The compromise on the table, with which I am very happy, and which nearly all of the groups in this House support and which has also been endorsed by the other European institutions, is very good in my view. Through this compromise we give the Member States the possibility of taking appropriate measures to guarantee coexistence and thus also freedom of choice for consumers in the future. As a Member of the European Parliament, I would obviously have liked the Member States to be placed under an obligation to do this. Unfortunately, the short time available meant that it was not possible to negotiate this.
I believe, though, that this compromise does put the onus on the Member States not just to sit back and point the finger at Brussels where this important issue is concerned, but also to fulfil their own responsibility in this respect and to protect consumers' freedom of choice.
I should like to take a few more seconds to thank Members from the other groups for their fruitful cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples