Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the labelling of genetically manipulated food and feed is a milestone for consumer protection. At long last, consumers will no longer be able to be sold genetically manipulated food under false pretences. When, as was the case in Germany, 90% of all genetically manipulated soya products were not labelled, this was tantamount to saying that consumers were incapable of making their own decisions. Now, at long last, they are getting freedom of choice. Foods such as oil and sugar, up to 100% of which consisted of genetically modified raw materials, finally have to be labelled. The products of gene technology must be transparent from the field to the fork. The threshold is admittedly too high for our liking, but it counts as a huge success that we are enabling the Member States to take measures to ensure that GM, traditional and organic farming are able to coexist. We have also very clearly enshrined the ‘polluter pays’ principle here; otherwise in the long term freedom of choice would not be guaranteed at all.
Unfortunately, we in the European Parliament have no influence on the lifting of the moratorium on genetic engineering. If the Commission lifts the moratorium under pressure from the USA, labelling will enable consumers to respond with a moratorium on purchases. We will move from a political moratorium to a practical moratorium on purchases imposed by consumers. The litmus test for the genetic engineering industry is not authorisation but sales. Genetically manipulated products will have to maintain their hold on the market. I am sure that at the moment no manufacturer will dare to bank on genetic engineering. Manufacturers are as afraid of labelling as the devil is of holy water. They also know that more than 90% of consumers reject genetically manipulated food.
We regret the fact that products of animals that have been fed genetically modified feed will not be subject to the labelling requirements, but we are relying on the labelling requirement for animal feed and on the fact that farmers know what consumers want.
Where seed is concerned too I expect the Commission – and I would ask them to comment on this – not to play any tricks; we really need EU seed legislation with a zero detection limit value. Anything else would amount to deceiving the consumer. Otherwise, these two regulations would quickly become wastepaper. Our expectations here are quite clear: that the Commission should implement this zero detection limit value for seed, because we know that it is possible to have seed with a zero limit value as it is already on the market in Austria and other countries. This is not about unavoidable technical uncertainty. I would therefore ask you, Commissioner, to give your views on this once more.
My final point is that we all know that Bush's claim that the EU is responsible for hunger in Africa was cynical. The problem there is not one of technology, but of distribution. We also know that these countries are certainly in no position to buy expensive seed from the US genetic engineering industry. I therefore hope that tomorrow will indeed mark a milestone for consumers and that consumers will indeed respond to the lifting of the moratorium with a moratorium on purchases."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples