Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-501"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-03-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Novel foods (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090324.37.2-501"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-03-24-Speech-2-5022
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	"Madam President, it would be good if you could allow me the additional half a minute which Mrs Breyer from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has just had. The Commission has submitted a good proposal for updating the regulation on novel foods. Unfortunately, some amendments have been tabled with the aim of adding objectives to this proposal which are not compatible with the goals of the regulation or which even interfere with existing case law. The obligation on food suppliers to monitor novel foods in terms of the health and welfare of animals would impose too great a burden on retailers. Once again an attempt is being made to undermine existing GMO legislation, in this case the call for special labelling for novel foods which come from animals that have been fed genetically modified feedstuffs. We have already heard about all of this. Anything which involves GMO legislation should not be included in the regulation on novel foods. I say this, but I myself tabled an amendment to distinguish between new plant types and the definition of novel foods. However, interested parties in this House must not be allowed to misuse the regulation on novel foods for electioneering purposes. Amendments 62 and 90, for which the Greens have requested a vote by roll call, are obviously an attempt of this kind. Who are you aiming to pillory for this? My group has always supported the right of the consumer to know what foods contain. Why should there not be a reference to nanosubstances in the list of ingredients? Although amendment 62 makes a rather clumsy attempt to anticipate my report on food labelling, I must say that I believe that the labelling of novel foods is fully compatible with my report. Therefore I recommend that my group votes in favour of the amendments. In my report on food labelling regulations, I will refer to the part of the regulation on novel foods which concerns labelling. This will be possible because the first reading on the labelling of foods has been postponed to the next parliamentary term, against the Greens’ wishes. However, it has now become clear how beneficial this postponement was for them. A brief remark on cloning. It is animal cruelty and we are opposed to it. Nevertheless foods must be included in this regulation, because otherwise ..."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph