Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2015-01-13-Speech-2-083-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20150113.6.2-083-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, almost five long years have passed since the Commission initially tabled this hugely significant proposal on national updates for GMO cultivation. The long and winding path to today’s vote reflects the highly controversial nature of genetic modification for consumers, farmers, national governments and MEPs in this Parliament. Consistent polls show that citizens across the European Union continue to be wary of GM – a wariness that biotech companies casually dismiss as lack of understanding. I would argue the opposite. Citizens are acutely aware of the implications of GM. They have seen the impact that GM cultivation has had in America and India: increased herbicide resistance and the need for stronger pesticides and more frequent pesticide use.
The ups and downs of this legislation have, unfortunately, ended on a disappointing note. Parliament’s first reading and Frédérique Ries’s report from last year were both excellent rebuttals to the initial weak proposal by the Commission in 2010 and the very worrying Council position of June 2014. The Council position introduced a system whereby democratically-elected governments would politely ask a biotech company to remove their territory from the authorisation procedure. The concept of a private company being placed on an equal footing with a sovereign country is deeply undemocratic and set a worrying precedent.
While I welcome the fact that this system has been improved in the final document, I nevertheless believe that the legislation before us is flawed. Parliament wanted to ensure that Member States would be able to use justifications for opting out based on environmental and health grounds additional to those examined in the European risk assessment. Unfortunately the key word ‘complementary’ has been removed to a recital, and the language is contradictory and would be worrying if it were ever challenged in court. There has been further weakening of the text with the change of the legal basis, environmental considerations relegated to the recitals, and the crucial liability scheme being removed.
For countries such as Ireland, where the agriculture sector is vital, it is essential that opting out should be definitive. In order for me to vote in favour of this report, opting out would have to be absolutely legally watertight, and I do not believe this legislation makes it so."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples