Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-134"

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	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030701.5.2-134"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-07-01-Speech-2-1352
lpv:speaker	lp:Karin Scheele2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, although a lot has been said in today’s debate about threshold values, and about their being politically arbitrary, I would like to emphasise how important it was for this House, at first reading, to specify a figure of 0.5%, even though many were not happy about it. The fact is that, if this figure of 0.5% had not been hammered out and adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we would not have such a rigorous Common Position and also the present basis for negotiating an acceptable compromise on co-existence. The second point I would like to address is that I do not think it is very fair for us to be now acting as if we were about to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetically modified organisms. We know for a fact that we do not have the option of saying ‘no’, whether to GMOs or to many chemicals and other products. That is one reason why I campaigned for the most stringent conditions in the authorisation process and for comprehensive labelling. Mrs Flemming’s criticism was that the method of labelling was politically dishonest. I would ask her – although she is no longer here – whether not labelling something that was 100% composed of GMOs would mean that we were being more politically honest with consumers. I believe that the European public are perfectly grown-up enough to come to their own opinions on this, and also that biotechnology cannot but become more credible and be taken more seriously if it does not hide behind badly-framed rules on labelling. To those who draw attention to their energetic campaigning for labelling as ‘GMO-free’, I have always said that the fact that products are ‘GMO-free’ can be indicated by additional labelling. We cannot conceal from consumers the fact that genetically-modified organisms are everywhere. I believe that we have to stress the fact, and bring it to people’s attention, that this stance was friendly only to industry and not to the consumer."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph