Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what is at issue today is not the profits made by enterprises or conglomerates, but our gaining, at last, the length and breadth of Europe, a single legal framework which will enable genetically-modified foods and feedingstuffs to be authorised, labelled, and traced. This will give all participants in the market – including consumers – a guarantee of legal certainty; it may have come very late in the day, but I hope it is not too late. In terms of the practical implementation of this technology, we Europeans are over ten years behind developments in other countries, while our researchers are without doubt equal to the best in the world. To put it another way, what this amounts to is that research findings have been left unused for ten years, and research in Europe has been scrapped, especially into green genetic engineering, even though the usefulness of this is not a matter of dispute. As Mr Davies has given a number of examples of this, I do not need to do likewise.
Over recent years, however, public discussion has not been about the pros and cons of genetic engineering, but has instead been a campaign mounted along ideological lines, aimed at obstructing a modern and forward-looking technology, so it is not to be wondered at that the results of surveys show the majority regarding genetic engineering as the work of the devil and abominating it. A number of interventions in this House today gave me the feeling that the plague was on its way back to Europe. We have to be very careful here. This situation means that it is perfectly reasonable that the regulations should contain very stringent rules on authorisation, labelling, and traceability, even though these threaten to break the bounds of practical feasibility. The reason why I say this is that I think that we, simply by applying very stringent measures, are guaranteeing the absolute maximum of safety that is practically feasible – and this is something that we also need to tell the public over and over again in the information campaign.
Although the information requirements provided for in the regulations are certainly an important means towards this end, I would like to appeal also to the Commission and say that I too regard Europe-wide information campaigns as necessary, as Mrs Breyer has announced a campaign for a moratorium on buying GM products. If the labelling of these products results only in their being rejected, we will certainly not be able to catch up on the rest of the world. Whilst this compromise motion is certainly an intelligent solution, I do have my doubts – and a number of interventions seem to justify them – as to whether it will succeed. When it comes to drawing up guidelines – and I can tell the Commission that I am agog to see what will happen when they do – there will be a lot of hard work to be done; it will not be easy, and I hope it does not turn out to be a bureaucratic monster."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples