Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, according to a recent poll conducted by Eurobarometer, over 70% of Europeans do not want to eat GMOs. There was, therefore, a need to provide European consumers with a response, by adopting legislation on labelling, which should enable everyone to choose what they eat.
I do, however, have several reservations. The first concerns the 0.9% threshold. Why, when a lower presence is technically detectable – with a threshold of 0.5% being accepted for non-authorised GMOs – are we refusing to be less demanding? The situation would be different if a 0.9% presence becomes a reality before the moratorium is even lifted.
My second reservation concerns consumer choice. Will this choice be guaranteed in future, when we do not envisage any binding legislation on the subject of coexistence and instead leave it to Member States to adopt appropriate measures? Perhaps we already know that coexistence is impossible, that we can regulate neither the flight of the bumblebees nor the direction or strength of the wind and that planting GMOs is irreversible? If this is the case, we are taking a considerable risk for Europeans, because we cannot make the issue of GMOs solely one of consumer choice, turning a blind eye to public health and environmental problems.
Lastly, no one has to date been able to produce powerful, irrefutable and convincing arguments that prove the benefit and the harmless nature of GMOs. GMO crops and biotechnologies are too frequently lumped together, but GMOs are only one of biotechnology’s many applications. Refusing to extend the use of GMOs in Europe does not mean that we are against progress, or against gene therapies; it simply means that we are choosing the precautionary principle over the trial and error of the sorcerer’s apprentice.
Everyone is well aware that what still counts the most in this field is economic and financial interests and that the EU’s agricultural and environmental future will be shaped by pressure from the United States and from WTO negotiations. This is most regrettable, because it should not be forgotten that the United States has still not ratified the Cartagena protocol.
I have the feeling that all of these debates and our votes tomorrow are preparing us for agreeing to raise the moratorium without too much argument. Our vote will, therefore, be much more political than it appears to be and we would be failing the citizens if we did not demand, before any decision is taken, to be better informed about the real risks that GMO crops will entail for the environment and for people’s health."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples