Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, tomorrow, I will be voting in favour of both reports. Nonetheless, labelling will be difficult for industry and will provide no honest information for the consumer. In its Common Position, the Council gives it as its opinion that the reports are aimed at preventing the consumer from being misled. How kind! The only problem is that it will not work like that. The fact is that labels do not have to show any adventitious or technically unavoidable contamination that might be present, at any rate not below a certain threshold value. Mrs Roth-Behrendt deserves our thanks for making that so marvellously clear.
Whether the figure is 0.9%, 0.5%, or perhaps we will hit on the idea of 0.1% or even 0.01% – the whole thing is nothing but a load of eyewash. If there is no danger to health – and there is none – then what is all the song and dance about? Pity the consumer who will eat GMOs without knowing it, whom we will quite deliberately be misleading. Read item 12 of the Scheele report and you realise how worthy of a comedy turn the whole thing is, for it says that, in order for the requirement of labelling to be dispensed with, the operator must certify to the competent authorities that he has done everything possible to prevent genetically modified organisms from being present. The good fellow has made such an effort, so we will not put the labels on and keep the consumer informed! The consumer will never discover what he has eaten. Never will it dawn on him that he has eaten GM food. In the committee, I attempted to prevent this, and put the case for doing away with negative labelling and saying yes to positive labelling. That would have been honest, and big firms like Nestlé, Unilever, and others would have gone along with it. No doubt it was too late for that. Let us treat the whole business as a didactic drama. Let us be glad that we have made co-existence possible, let us hope that someone will assume liability for it, and let us take this as a lesson in what political dishonesty can be like!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples