Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, as we all know, this technique is deeply controversial. We also all know that the majority of consumers do not want genetically modified food or the large-scale cultivation of genetically modified crops. Nor is there any getting away from the fact that there is a link between the
moratorium and these proposals concerning labelling and traceability. We think there are good reasons for scepticism. The cultivation of genetically modified crops presents well documented risks to biodiversity. There are possible health risks if sufficiently careful tests are not carried out. There are quite clear power relations between large and multinational businesses in these industries and the farmers in various countries affected by this technology. It is no coincidence that most GM crops cultivated around the world are resistant to a specific pesticide. We therefore see them as having few advantages; we see cause for great caution; and we support the
moratorium.
Now, it is, however, a question of labelling and traceability. We therefore choose to support making the rules as strict and as tough as possible. It is also on this basis that we shall vote. In that way, we can give consumers the best opportunity of choosing what they want to purchase and of opting out of what they do not want to purchase.
What is quite clear is that the European Parliament’s proposals will improve these legislative proposals. In particular, I think that the compromise reached on Mrs Scheele’s report is a clear step forward. I should also like to thank the rapporteur for the open way in which she has worked on these issues and which has given other groups the opportunity to exert some influence. What are important in the compromise are, in particular, the wording on co-existence and the possible measures proposed to enable the Member States to avoid contamination by GMOs. Our group would like, however, to go still further. We are therefore going to vote in favour of the amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, designed to prune the threshold values for authorised GMOs back to 0.5%. We also find it unacceptable that, during a transitional period, genetically modified organisms otherwise not in actual fact permitted in the EU should be permitted.
It might be wondered whether these new rules are sufficient to justify lifting the moratorium. Our answer is an emphatic no, for a lot more is required if consideration is to be given to doing so. The rules need to be implemented in the Member States. Clear rules on co-existence are required, and rules are also required concerning environmental liability in relation to genetically modified crops. Only then do we think that a start can be made on the debate. In that context, the relationship with the United States is also used as an argument, but we can never satisfy the United States in this area. That is an illusion. Our task is to embrace a more responsible position, both globally and in the European Union. It is not, then, acceptable to begin by yielding ground. Instead, we must assert our right to put consumers and the environment first and to set rules as strict as we like."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples