Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-122"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-07-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Genetically modified organisms2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030701.5.2-122"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-07-01-Speech-2-1232
lpv:speaker	lp:Ria Oomen-ruijten2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I am pleased that all the parties and all the groups in this House – including the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance – agree on the political compromise that has been reached. After all, today’s legislation means that the moratorium will be lifted. Member States can therefore no longer prescribe their own requirements and ban products off their own bat if GMOs have been tested and approved at European level and meet all safety standards. I am also pleased that the Commission will be tabling a proposal shortly in which it will indicate how GMO farming, organic farming and traditional farming can continue to exist side by side. I wonder what the proposal will be like, but I assume that sufficient guarantees will be given for traditional and organic farming. Madam President, Consumers have the right to know what they eat and to be certain that their food is safe. Consumers must be able to choose, and labelling is crucial to this. I am not at all happy with the rules that have been laid down, not only in the Environment Council and in the Agriculture Council, but also in our own group. After all, traceability has not been factored in as the guiding principle: as modified DNA can be present unintentionally, a margin is provided for. We will therefore never be able to say again that something is completely free of modified DNA, which, to my mind, turns freedom of choice into a farce. Let me give you two examples: foodstuffs made GMOs, such as sugar, starch and vegetable oils, fall within the scope of the labelling obligation, while sugar, oil and starch do not contain any protein or DNA. Other foodstuffs, however, that have been prepared a GMO do not fall within the scope of the labelling obligation; these are cheese, wine, beer, soft drinks and last but not least, our daily bread, while bread improvers used to prepare bread contain yeasts or fungi with a GMO. These contain residues of modified DNA in a verifiable manner. The distinction drawn is therefore hypocritical and I can understand very easily that industry has difficulty with it. I regret it and I hope that in two years’ time, thanks to the amendment clause, something better will turn up."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"do"1 "of"1 "with"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph