Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-06-Speech-2-551"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100706.32.2-551"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to express my thanks to the rapporteur and, on behalf of our shadow rapporteur, Ms Lepage, I would like to express our support for the main key points of the report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
As my colleague said, the main outstanding issue in the revision of the novel foods regulation is the question of animal cloning. While no safety concerns have been identified so far with meat produced from cloned animals, such a technology still raises serious concerns about animal welfare, the reduction of biodiversity, and ethical considerations.
This is why we want to exclude meat produced from cloned animals and their offspring from the scope of this regulation, and we ask the Commission to present a legislative proposal addressing all aspects of this issue. It would be unacceptable to set up an authorisation process for the marketing of cloned animals without giving European citizens and the European Parliament the chance to have a proper debate about all the implications of this technology.
Let me also remind you that this position has already been clearly expressed by Parliament in its 2008 resolution on the cloning of animals for the food supply chain.
With regard to nanofood, we should indeed make sure that no products containing engineered nanoparticulates are put on the market until appropriate specific risk assessment methods have been developed and approved. Guidelines in this regard should be drafted by EFSA in consultation with all stakeholders and approved by Member States and Parliament.
Most of us would also agree that the question of transparency is crucial when we address this dossier. We therefore need to guarantee public access to data on which the risk assessment for novel food is based. It is not only studies paid by public money that should be publicly accessible, but all data related to risk assessment, in conformity with the Aarhus Convention and the EU law currently applying.
There is no contradiction with this principle of public access to data and protection of intellectual property rights, as long as an applicant who uses data from another applicant pays royalties. Transparency should also apply when we speak about the labelling of products from animals fed by GMOs.
To conclude, I would like to stress our hope that the discussion in conciliation will lead to a clear text which guarantees both safety and transparency for our citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples