Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2015-01-13-Speech-2-081-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20150113.6.2-081-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the overall agreement broadly reflects the Commission’s original intention: that Member States should have the option to decide whether or not to cultivate GMOs. The intention was to unblock the wholly unjustified failure to grant final approval of GMOs by the Commission. In other words, we are now present at the final act in a long and expensive process initiated simply to avoid repeated exposure of the Commission’s lack of political courage. On a more optimistic note, this does show that EU competences as defined by the Treaties are not absolute, and I look forward to such flexibility being shown in other areas as my Prime Minister continues his negotiations to reform the EU.
Of course, as with all controversial proposals, the devil is in the detail. There are many details here which I find unacceptable. The agreement will permit Member States to proceed directly to national bans post-Union authorisation, rather than first seeking a more legally-sound opt-out from authorisation, as initially proposed. It allows for national bans to apply to groups of GMOs, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and fails to completely rule out the possibility of Member States citing environmental and public health grounds for national bans. This conflicts with the EFSA risk assessment process, whereby the environmental and public health risks of GMOs are examined on a case-by-case basis prior to Union authorisation. On principle, I cannot accept a proposal which allows for the scientific assessment of GMOs to be undermined in this way.
The European Parliament’s negotiating position on this file has led to this unsatisfactory outcome. Based on a disproportionate demonisation of GMOs along the ‘Frankenstein foods’ lines promoted in the tabloid press, Members are cutting off a route to higher yields, lower pesticide use and less use of water, and denying access to new-generation GMOs, such as Omega-3-rich camelina, which will have widespread health benefits. I hope that the cobbled-together, legally-fragile compromise that Parliament has promoted will be robust and that the authorisations will start to flow. Member States that want to continue to develop European agriculture as the best in the world are holding their breath, counting on this not being just a charter to ban, but also a key to unlock progress."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples