Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-125"

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	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030701.5.2-125"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-07-01-Speech-2-1262
lpv:speaker	lp:Patricia McKENNA2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, I very much agree with what Mrs Ferreira has just said. Demand for GM food is not driven by consumers. On the contrary, it is driven by – and is only for the benefit of – multinational GM companies. The United States' concern for the starving populations of the world is as genuine as George Bush's concern for the Iraqi people's rights. By the way, Iraq currently has a GM ban. The United States should not be allowed to force this to be changed. If the United States and GM multinationals are so concerned about world hunger why do they not put the resources spent on research and PR for GM into helping them fend for themselves, not into forcing them to become even more reliant on multinational companies to grow their own food? They should also stop exploiting them. In relation to the coexistence issue, this is a myth. Unless crops are grown, harvested, processed, eaten, and even the waste disposed of in laboratories, it is inevitable that there will be contamination. What are we going to do in Europe? Are we going to start introducing Schengen agreements for bees, birds and the wind and also ensure that we do not have any kind of cross-pollination? It is absolutely impossible! When we talk about the polluter-pays principle, the multinationals must be held accountable for the fact that conventional farmers, and in particular organic farmers, are not going to be allowed to do what they have done in the past. This is all about profit and greed. The consumers do not want GM food, so why are we being forced into it just for the benefit of multinational companies? What we have agreed in Parliament, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, does not go far enough. The threshold is far too high, since a lower one could be achieved. Personally, I believe a zero threshold is the only one acceptable."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Green Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"McKenna (Verts/ALE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph