Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we need new regulation on labelling and traceability and it must be as rigorous as possible. But my key point is that even if tough new rules are adopted tomorrow, as we hope, this should not be seen as a green light to lift the de facto moratorium. These directives do not address properly the very real risk of contamination of non-GM and organic agriculture with GM varieties. Nor do they provide for liability rules to cover farmers who are victims of such contamination.
Research by the Commission, by the European Environment Agency and by the Department for Environment in my own country all conclude that licensing GM crops will almost inevitably lead to widespread contamination of non-GM crops.
If we are to ensure that the public has the right to choose to reject GM we must ensure not only that GM is labelled, but also that non-GM continues to exist. Unless we can address the problem of contamination, that cannot be guaranteed. I do not believe Mr Fischler's guidelines will be adequate. The moratorium therefore must stay in place.
Finally, there are a number of national consultation processes going on in the Member States on GM crops. It is vital that those processes are taken seriously. It is therefore a matter of much regret that the UK Government's process has been under-funded and badly publicised. Its deadline must be extended if we are not to conclude that government ministers have already decided in favour of GM cultivation."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples