Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-325"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031217.12.3-325"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-17-Speech-3-3262
lpv:speaker	lp:Karl Erik Olsson2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Centerpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, we are not concerned here with the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms. I am among those who believe that neither humanity as a whole nor its merely European component can do without this knowledge and technology. It is, however, very important that we apply the precautionary and ‘polluter pays’ principles and that we respect people’s anxiety faced with something new. We must therefore be able to label GMOs and provide proper information about them. We have had, and still have, different views on the point at issue, but I nonetheless wish to congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on this report. We have substantially been able to agree upon an attitude to be adopted by the European Parliament, and I hope that this will give a signal to the Commission and the Council. I think that the report is very well balanced, but I have some comments to make. I am disappointed when I hear the Commissioner so positively come out against paragraph 3 on common rules. The wind does in actual fact blow across national borders. It is not sensible to have one rule apply on one side of a national border and another rule on the other side. We are concerned here with life and with what life consists of. If we wish to achieve something by what we are doing, we must have common rules. Think about it in the Commission before you make any over-hasty decisions. I am able, however, to go some way towards agreeing with the Commission when it comes to paragraph 9. I believe it would be dangerous to continue with a moratorium if we do not get what we want. I actually agree with paragraph 9, but I consider that it perhaps goes a little too far. I am not prepared to vote in favour of that paragraph. It is the only paragraph in the report about which I take a different view. When it comes to regional renunciation, the Commissioner says that it can only become a reality if it is voluntary. In my simplicity, I had imagined that democratic decisions were always voluntary. Does that not, then, mean that there can be no cause for concern? I believe that a region or country is entitled to say ‘we do not want this’. We cannot compel people to use a technology if they do not wish to do so, even if I consider the technology to be a sound one. It is very important that we give out this signal and that we can be in relative agreement tomorrow when we take a decision. We certainly have different views on the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms, but we wish to be cautious. We now wish to come up with a proposal on how to arrange for coexistence, and this with a view to our being credible in the eyes of all those who have to live on the food that is produced in either one way or another."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph