Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-507"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.37.2-507"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to elaborate on a few very important points which were made by honourable Members.
The opinion of the European Group on Ethics also highlights a number of scientific questions that need to be answered, and research that needs to be carried out, on food safety, animal health and welfare, traceability and labelling.
In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge that, with regard to cloning, there is certainly an issue to be addressed, but the Novel Food Regulation is not the right place to regulate all the questions surrounding this sensitive matter.
Nevertheless, I would like to make a commitment, on behalf of the Commission, to produce, as soon as possible, a comprehensive report on all aspects of cloning techniques with a view to the production of foodstuffs, including animal health and welfare in relation to clones and their offspring, accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. Let me stress that I believe that a solution can be found on the issue and, in this respect, I thank Parliament for its understanding and cooperation.
The Commission can accept Amendments 7, 12, 34, 35, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53 and 63.
Amendments 3, 8, 15, 20, 58, 64, 65, 76, 87, 88 and 89 can be accepted in principle.
Amendments 1, 6, 10, 25, 30, 31, 36, 40, 66, 67, 69, 77, 82, 84, 85 and 93 are acceptable subject to rewording.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 90, 91 and 92.
Concerning nanotechnologies, I have taken note of recent scientific opinions and I am convinced by the related documents in Mrs Liotard’s report. The European Union will be first in the world to have a regulatory definition of engineered nanomaterials and a coherent and flexible approach to this technology.
In order to clarify the Commission’s position on the definition of nanotechnologies, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission notes that work towards a common definition of nanomaterials is still evolving. The Commission therefore confirms that, in future Community legislation, progress on the common definition should be taken into account, and notes that the comitology procedures included in this proposal also enable the definition in this proposal to be updated.
Regarding the mandatory labelling of all food produced with the aid of nanotechnology, I would like to note that the Commission is indeed in favour of consumer information about the presence of nanomaterials in food. However, under the Novel Food Regulation we have a case-by-case authorisation which also lays down conditions for use of such products, including the labelling requirements. Labelling will thus be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Let me now clarify my position on the important issue of cloning. I have already stated that I consider that the Novel Food Regulation is not the most suitable instrument for managing all the issues of cloning. Novel Food only deals with food safety and market authorisation. Therefore the use of clones in breeding programmes – semen, embryos and ova – cannot be regulated under the Novel Food Regulation, nor can issues linked to animal health and welfare be addressed here.
On 13 January, the College of Commissioners held an orientation debate on the cloning of farm animals for food production. The Commission agreed that there remain a number of unanswered questions. In this respect the Commission is working closely with EFSA and ensuring that related scientific research is conducted. At the same time, I launched discussions with our main trading partners: the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes, we need more information and data on cloning techniques and the way in which progenies of cloned animals should be handled from a regulatory perspective.
As some of you have mentioned, in July last year the European Food Safety Authority delivered its opinion covering the scientific aspects of cloning for food in the EU. The general conclusion of the opinion is that the risk assessment is insufficient due to the limited data available. With regard to the health and welfare of animals, the opinion makes it clear that a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected, often severely, and with a fatal outcome both for cloned animals and for the surrogate animal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Liotard report (A6-0512/2008 ) A6-0512/2008"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples