Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-01-14-Speech-2-708-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140114.46.2-708-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken.
We have seen clearly from the debate that this discussion is about GMO and about labelling. I would just like to remind colleagues that I submitted this report on 19 December 2012, and we have spent an awfully long time running around pretending it was not about these things. It has taken until today to get it absolutely clear and out in the open that this is what it is about. I would like to make the point, however, that that is not what the report is about.
Many Members here seem to have either forgotten or maybe to be deliberately ignoring the fact that, as the Commissioner said, all foodstuffs have a GMO adventitious threshold of 0.9 %: all of them. Honey too. If you want to single out honey as something exceptional (and that is clearly what some Members want to do), be very clear about your motives for doing that and about what the ramifications for the honey industry could be.
I would like now to clear up one or two issues. We heard talk about distance, namely that this would be OK because we have an amendment in there about 10 kilometres. What nonsense! There is an amendment in the report, which went through the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which suggests that the Commission should look at the figure of 10 kilometres. It does not guarantee it, and indeed there is no legal instrument for guaranteeing that at all. You must simply put that to one side: it is not an aspect of our deliberations here. What we are deliberating on here is very simple.
Also, I am, quite frankly, shocked by some colleagues’ propensity for seeking to go along with what the European Court of Justice said just because they said it. The Court of Justice has a very important function, but we in this Parliament, and indeed in the Commission and Council as co-legislators, also have a very important function, which is to reconsider how our legislation is framed, on the basis of comments from the Court. And that is precisely what we are doing.
So perhaps I can do no better than to echo the point that Ms Sommer made. She said that this is a regulation on food, not on GMOs. Let us stick to that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples