Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the swift entry into force of these proposals for a regulation is a precondition for the final lifting of the
moratorium on green genetic engineering, which has been in place for several years. It is the current ban on growing and importing GMOs that for years has cut off Europe's scientific community, its consumers and farmers from the positive developments in the field of green genetic engineering. Moreover we are facing complaints before the WTO from countries that wish to export genetically modified products to the EU, but may not do so because of the moratorium. The USA has already filed a complaint.
What escapes all of those who want – often for purely ideological reasons – to prevent GMOs from being used here is the fact that genetically modified food and feed have been a reality throughout the world for some considerable time already. And particularly where protein feed is concerned we are dependent on imports from third countries, where the growing of genetically modified plants is the order of the day. In 2001 the EU imported over 16 million tonnes of soya from the USA and South America: in the USA the proportion of the total soya crop that is GM is 68%; in Argentina it is 100%.
This is the reality that is facing uncertain consumers and farmers in Europe, as well as a research sector that is unable to plan ahead. Consumers and farmers treat green genetic engineering here with suspicion because they do not know what the issues are. This is due to a policy of insufficient information, which – at least in my home country of Germany – is entirely intentional.
We are not making policy to order here. Through these draft regulations we need to secure freedom of choice for consumers, and my group as much as any other, Mrs Scheele, is in favour of protecting human health and therefore also in favour of robust consumer protection. But with this legislation we also need to cater for agriculture, the environment, small and medium-sized seed producers, industry, the retail food trade and many other branches of industry. And we need a labelling requirement so as to be able at long last to assess imports from third countries properly. To do so we need to employ reasonable, realistic thresholds, admittedly political thresholds, which are based on what is technically feasible and workable. It is a great success, particularly for our group, that all of the other groups are now supporting the Council's common position on the limit values: 0.9% for authorised GMOs and 0.5% for GMOs that are ready for authorisation and in a backlog because of the moratorium.
The same applies to the decision that this regulation should not include provisions on seed. Seed needs its own rules and we cannot have the coexistence issue, that is, the coexistence of genetically modified and conventional plants on agricultural land, being used as a vehicle to place a general blockade on green genetic engineering. It was only on this condition that my group agreed to the compromise. The Commission is now under an obligation to ensure that the
moratorium is not artificially prolonged by some Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples