Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the labelling of food products containing genetically modified organisms is, of course, to be welcomed, because consumers can make up their own minds. Whether or not these consumers are right in having doubts about GMOs, the customer is ultimately always right.
Legislation on labelling, however, to my mind, misses the mark on at least two fundamental counts. First of all, the consumer does not get what he wants. A consumer who wants GMO-free products does not want less than 0.9% or 0.5% GMOs in them. No, he does not want any GMOs at all. A non-GMO label would therefore have been much better. It is unfortunate that this can no longer be on the agenda, as we rejected it at first reading. Moreover, a label of that kind would have made superfluous the whole debate we are now having about co-existence.
The second problem is that this is about political labelling which goes much further than information of potential relevance to public health. As far as I am concerned, paper traceability instead of factual traceability is a mistake. It is asking for fraud, and so the next food scandal is already in the making.
Finally, it is to be hoped that this proposal will lead to a lifting of the GMO moratorium. This is what matters most; it means that Europe’s lack of knowledge compared to the United States is only growing. I should therefore like to ask the same question which Mrs Jackson raised a moment ago, namely whether this proposal will lead to the moratorium actually being lifted, because this is still shrouded in uncertainty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples