Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we have now come to the end of this debate that has lasted for very nearly two years at this level of intensity. The evidence of the cooperation that has taken place between our institutions is in the presentation of the legislation before you for voting on tomorrow.
I do not believe we should be doing this in the face of any threat of WTO proceedings or anything of that nature. The work I have been doing – and I am sure it is the same for you – has been done on the basis of trying to achieve what is right, trying to achieve a result that provides the kind of choice for consumers that we believe is necessary and provides the choice for them in a meaningful way and in an informed manner.
We do this work because we believe it is right. We do not do this work because other people believe we ought to speed it up and do what they believe. I do not do this work under threat of WTO proceedings.
To those of you who have expressed scepticism and still have some worries about this legislation, within a period of two years after the adoption of this legislation and it becomes law, there is specific provision in the legislation for a review. Therefore, it is possible – and it is intended – for us to return to this issue in that timescale so that we can, with the experience of the operation of the legislation, determine whether there is any need for adjustment and for amendments. In my opinion that is an important part of the legislation which will assuage the concerns of those who are expressing anxiety about it.
Will I take infringement proceedings or do I believe the Commission should take infringement proceedings if there is a failure to comply with the law? It is the Commission's function and role to look to the legislation, ensure that the laws of the European Union are properly applied and implemented and if there is a failure to apply
legislation – including this legislation – then we must take our responsibility and move in the way that we are required to do under the Treaties.
Finally, I thank Mrs Scheele for her hard work and for the cooperation she has afforded to me in meetings personally and with my staff, and compliment her on the outcome of some difficult work over a long period of time. I also enjoyed working with her during that period.
Of course there have been expressions of different views by many sides during the course of the debate over the last two years and, indeed, in this Chamber this afternoon. There are some inevitably who will not be satisfied with the legislation that is put forward. Some for instance say that we go too far in achieving the balance that we have tried to achieve and that this will put off and set back the development of biotechnology in Europe in the future; that we are losing our good scientists to the United States.
That may be true but, nonetheless, we have to ensure that we have in place good legislation that gives valuable information to the consumer so that the consumer can make the choice of whether or not to consume GM foods.
We have put in place in this legislation – the best legislation in the world on this issue – providing free market authorisation, monitoring, labelling and labelling supported by traceability to give it the appropriate level and full credibility.
Others reject GMOs and I suspect some of them would reject GMOs at any cost. I have to tell them that they will never be satisfied and there is no legislation that will satisfy them. In those circumstances, have they placed themselves in a situation where their views cannot be fully taken into account? Perhaps that is the case.
Those who have worked hard on this issue – Mrs Scheele, my own staff and I hope myself – have attempted to achieve a balance so that we get in the legislation the best solution for all points of view, having taken into account views expressed right across the spectrum to achieve the result which is before you this afternoon and for voting on tomorrow.
I have to say to those who are very sceptical about this technology that all the scientific evidence available to us indicates that GM food is as safe as conventional food. There is no scientific evidence going in a contrary direction. We have said time and time again that our decisions here in Parliament and in the Commission must be science-based. If we move away from that we are in peril.
I have been asked to deal with the question of the moratorium. A number of Member States and a number of others asked for the
moratorium to be put in place to enable legislation to be brought forward to achieve what we have in this draft legislation at the moment. I cannot believe that it was the intention of those who wanted this work to be done to then say that, despite all this hard work, effort, expense and debate, they nonetheless believe that the moratorium should remain in place.
In those circumstances, reflecting the views of those who asked us to engage in this exercise and provide this legislation, we have now come to the stage when we must lift the de facto moratorium. Legislation is in place which gives adequate protection and information for consumers. It is a sophisticated piece of legislation – the best in the world, as I have said – to enable consumers to make the choice for themselves of whether or not to consume GM foods. The choice is for them. In those circumstances it is appropriate to move now to the beginnings of the lifting of the de facto moratorium on food and feed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples