Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-117"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-07-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:MON 863 - Risk Management (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070709.17.1-117"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-07-09-Speech-1-1182
lpv:speaker	lp:Renate Sommer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, was it not us, was it not the European Parliament that wanted to have an independent European Food Safety Authority? Was it not also the Council of Ministers that wanted to have an independent EFSA, an authority on whose findings you can rely, an authority where there is no risk of getting bogus studies? Did the European Parliament not at that time charge EFSA with making risks assessments of GMOs, and did the Council of Ministers not back that very thing in codecision? In April 2004, EFSA assessed MON 863 maize to be just as safe as conventional maize. A second EFSA safety assessment in October 2004 came to the same conclusion. That is not of course what the green souls among us want to hear, and because what the Greens do not want simply cannot be, they commission their own study. Then this eventually finds, surprise, surprise, that genetically modified maize is lethal, and woe betide anyone who finds that suspect! The EFSA experts then asked for a repeat of the trial on rats. Again there was no sign of acute toxicological effects. Incidentally, the Greens’ study would have given the same result if the statistics had been evaluated correctly, but the statistical evaluation was not scientifically correct, as the Commissioner said. Once again, the Green study’s supposedly scientific findings were therefore deliberate scare-mongering, deliberately sowing anxiety in the minds of the public and pulling the wool over their eyes. It is the typical ideologically motivated policy of obstructiveness that they so much like to use in election campaigns as well. They are wasting taxpayers’ money by always calling for multiple repeats of the EFSA risk assessments. But will they also question the EFSA nutrient profiles under the Health Claims Regulation, for example? Of course not, because they fit in with their ideology. The Council of Ministers is also at fault, however. The national ministers responsible lack the courage to agree to authorise GMOs that have been examined and found to be safe. It is the small man’s fear of not being re-elected, neither more nor less! We are wasting such great opportunities for the EU: GMOs can give us better food and feed with nutrition-physiological added value and efficient renewable raw materials that are carbon-neutral and therefore have no effect on the climate. MON 863 is safe and must be approved just like the other useful plants that have been tested and found to be safe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph