Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040331.3.3-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Many questions are raised by the Commission’s initiative and by Parliament’s corresponding report.
We welcome moves to achieve a greater understanding of environmental threats to human health, to identify disease burden caused by environmental factors and to plan policy responses to challenges that emerge.
I do wonder, however, whether we would be better advised to assess and to show evidence of the impact of current policies in force at EU level, examples of which include the effects of the common agricultural policy on large agricultural companies; the policies of liberalisation that encourage the privatisation of essential public services, such as access to water, which are entirely focused on profit (for the few); or the watering down of the Kyoto objectives by establishing a market of polluting emissions, with priority given to the interests of large corporations. There are indeed other examples. It is, consequently, a pity that the report makes a brief reference to the need for ‘an intersectoral approach’.
The report also places emphasis on the need to apply the precautionary principle, when the science is not conclusive but when there is a potentially serious or irreversible threat to health or the environment, especially in the context of the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMO)."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples