Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-276"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-16"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Infotund (küsimused Euroopa Komisjonile)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060516.36.2-276"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-16-Speech-2-277⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Mariann Fischer Boel⁶
lpv:spoken text	". The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@cs¹ "Medlemmets spørgsmål giver indtryk af, at Kommissionen har foreslået at forhøje det acceptable niveau for utilsigtet forurening af økologiske produkter med gmo'er fra 0,1 % til 0,9 %. Jeg er meget tilfreds med at få lejlighed til at afklare dette spørgsmål, for det er blevet rejst over for både mig og mine tjenestegrene ved mange lejligheder og i mange forskellige fora. Efter min opfattelse skyldes bekymringerne en misforståelse af vores forslag og af gældende lovgivning om økologiske produkter og gmo'er. At læse vores forslag som "at tillade et indhold af gmo'er på 0,9 % i produkter, der er mærket som økologiske", er en klar fejlfortolkning. Jeg vil gerne forklare hvorfor. Ikke alle forbrugere er klar over det, men for øjeblikket findes der ingen specifik lovgivning om tilladelige gmo-tærskelværdier for økologiske produkter, der er ingen tilladte gmo-tærskelværdier for økologiske produkter. De eksisterende regler for økologisk produktion forbyder bevidst anvendelse af gmo'er eller gmo-afledte produkter, uden at der fastsættes nogen tærskelværdier for utilsigtet tilstedeværelse af spor af gmo'er. Derfor passer det ikke, at disse regler "allerede tillader et indhold af gmo'er på 0,1 % i produkter, der er mærket som økologiske", som medlemmet tilkendegav i sit spørgsmål. Disse regler stammer fra en tid, hvor gmo'er normalt ikke blev dyrket eller importeret. Den situation har tydeligvis ændret sig. I Kommissionens forslag fastholdes forbuddet mod bevidst anvendelse af gmo'er eller gmo-afledte produkter. Men vi foreslår imidlertid, at en erhvervsdrivende kan sætte sin lid til gm-mærkning ved sikring af, at ingen gmo'er kommer ind i vedkommendes produktion. Denne mærkning sikrer effektive beviser, eftersom gmo'er eller gmo-afledte produkter i dag generelt skal mærkes som gm i henhold til fællesskabslovgivningen. Det betyder i realiteten, at tærskelværdien på 0,9 % for utilsigtet tilstedeværelse af spor af gmo'er gælder for økologiske produkter på lige fod med andre produkter. Vi mener, at hvis vi forsøgte at indføre en strengere mærkningstærskel for økologiske produkter, ville det blot gøre livet meget vanskeligere for økologiske producenter, for vi ved, at fuldkommen renhed er uopnåeligt i praksis. Alligevel - og det vil jeg gerne understrege - betyder det ikke, som medlemmet erklærer, at forslaget forhøjede niveauet for tilladt gmo-forurening til 0,9 %. Den erhvervsdrivende må fortsat tage alle de behørige skridt til at forhindre tilstedeværelse af gmo'er! Noget, der derimod virkelig vil blive anderledes med vores forslag, er, at et produkt, der er mærket som gm, ikke længere samtidig vil kunne mærkes som økologisk, hvis tærskelværdien på 0,9 % overskrides, hvilket faktisk er muligt med den gældende lovgivning. Hvad angår sundhedsaspekterne, må det tages i betragtning, at gmo'er kun kan markedsføres efter en specifik godkendelsesprocedure fra sag til sag. EU har velsagtens verdens mest stringente og hårde risikovurderings- og godkendelsesprocedure for gmo'er, og det gælder både miljø- og sundhedsaspekter. Derfor vedrører debatten om utilsigtet tilstedeværelse af gmo'er ikke sikkerhedsanliggender. Til sidst vil jeg endnu en gang understrege, at det forslag, der bliver drøftet for øjeblikket, vil medføre en væsentlig opstramning af reglerne om utilsigtet forurening af økologiske produkter med gmo'er og ikke, som det ofte påstås, en svækkelse. Det er meget vigtigt. Der er virkelig tale om en stramning af kravene."@da² ". Die Frage der Frau Abgeordneten vermittelt den Eindruck, als habe die Kommission vorgeschlagen, den zulässigen Grenzwert für die zufällige Kontamination von Erzeugnissen aus biologischem Anbau mit GVO von 0,1 % auf 0,9 % zu erhöhen. Ich freue mich sehr, dass ich die Möglichkeit habe, diese Sache klarzustellen, denn dieses Problem wurde sowohl mir als auch meinen Dienststellen gegenüber bei zahlreichen Gelegenheiten angesprochen. Meines Erachtens resultieren diese Bedenken aus einem Missverständnis im Zusammenhang mit unserem Vorschlag und den geltenden Vorschriften für Erzeugnisse aus biologischem Anbau und GVO. Unseren Vorschlag so zu verstehen, als solle ein „GVO-Anteil von 0,9 % in als organisch gekennzeichneten Produkten“ zugelassen werden, stellt eindeutig eine Falschinterpretation dar. Ich möchte Ihnen erklären wieso. Nicht alle Verbraucher sind sich dessen bewusst, aber derzeit sind die zulässigen GVO-Grenzwerte für Erzeugnisse aus biologischem Anbau nicht gesetzlich geregelt. Es gibt keine zulässigen GVO-Grenzwerte für derartige Produkte. Die für den ökologischen Landbau geltenden Regelungen verbieten die bewusste Verwendung von GVO oder von daraus abgeleiteten Produkten, ohne einen Grenzwert für den unbeabsichtigten Eintrag von Spuren von GVO festzulegen. Daher kann keine Rede davon sein, dass „eine GVO-Kontamination von 0,1 % in als organisch gekennzeichneten Produkten bereits jetzt zugelassen ist“, wie die Frau Abgeordnete in ihrer Frage feststellt. Diese Vorschriften stammen aus einer Zeit, als GVO kaum angebaut oder eingeführt wurden. Diese Situation hat sich inzwischen natürlich verändert. Im Vorschlag der Kommission wird das Verbot der absichtlichen Verwendung von GVO oder von daraus abgeleiteten Produkten beibehalten. Wir schlagen allerdings vor, dass ein Betreiber die Möglichkeit haben soll, sich auf die GVO-Kennzeichnung zu stützen, wenn er bestätigt, dass er keine GVO einsetzt. Eine solche Kennzeichnung stellt einen effektiven Nachweis dar, da GVO oder daraus abgeleitete Produkte gegenwärtig laut Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebung als solche zu kennzeichnen sind. De facto bedeutet dies, dass für Erzeugnisse aus biologischem Anbau derselbe Grenzwert von 0,9 % gilt wie für andere Produkte. Wenn wir versuchen würden, bei Erzeugnissen aus biologischem Anbau eine strengere Kennzeichnung für Grenzwerte durchzusetzen, würden wir nach unserem Dafürhalten diesen Erzeugern das Leben viel schwerer machen, da uns klar ist, dass es in der Praxis unmöglich ist, eine hundertprozentige Reinheit zu erzielen. Trotzdem – und das möchte ich unterstreichen – bedeutet das nicht, dass der Vorschlag „eine Erhöhung dieses Anteils auf 0,9 %“, wie die Frau Abgeordnete feststellt, vorsieht. Durch den Betreiber sind auch künftig alle notwendigen Vorkehrungen zu treffen, um den Eintrag von GVO zu verhindern. Was sich durch unseren Vorschlag tatsächlich ändern würde ist die Tatsache, dass ein als GVO-haltig gekennzeichnetes Produkt nicht mehr als biologisch bezeichnet werden darf, wenn der Grenzwert von 0,9 % überschritten wird, was nämlich nach der derzeit geltenden Gesetzgebung möglich ist. Was gesundheitliche Aspekte anbelangt, so ist zu bedenken, dass GVO erst nach einem Zulassungsverfahren, das für jeden GVO gesondert durchzuführen ist, auf den Markt gebracht werden dürfen. Die Europäische Union verfügt zweifellos über die weltweit strengsten und konsequentesten Risikobewertungs- und Genehmigungsverfahren für GVO, und diese erstrecken sich sowohl auf ökologische und gesundheitliche Aspekte. Aus diesem Grund bezieht sich die Diskussion über den unbeabsichtigten Eintrag von GVO nicht auf Fragen der Sicherheit. Abschließend möchte ich nochmals unterstreichen, dass der derzeit diskutierte Vorschlag, was die zufällige Kontamination von Produkten aus ökologischem Anbau mit GVO betrifft, eine bedeutende Verschärfung der Vorschriften darstellt und nicht, wie so oft behauptet wird, eine Abschwächung. Das ist sehr wichtig. Wir verschärfen die Vorschriften."@de⁹ "Η ερώτηση της βουλευτού δίνει την εντύπωση ότι η Επιτροπή πρότεινε την αύξηση του αποδεκτού ορίου τυχαίας μόλυνσης των βιολογικών προϊόντων με ΓΤΟ από 0,1% σε 0,9%. Χαίρομαι που μου δίνεται η ευκαιρία να διασαφηνίσω αυτό το θέμα, διότι το ζήτημα τέθηκε τόσο από εμένα όσο και από τις υπηρεσίες μου πολλές φορές και σε πολλά διαφορετικά βήματα διαλόγου. Κατά την άποψή μου, οι ανησυχίες βασίζονται σε μια παρανόηση της πρότασής μας και της ισχύουσας νομοθεσίας σχετικά με τα βιολογικά προϊόντα και τους ΓΤΟ. Η κατανόηση της πρότασής μας ως «να επιτρέψει την παρουσία σε ποσοστό 0,9% γενετικά τροποποιημένων οργανισμών σε προϊόντα που επισημαίνονται ως βιολογικά» αποτελεί σαφή παρερμηνεία. Θα ήθελα να εξηγήσω τον λόγο. Δεν το γνωρίζουν όλοι οι καταναλωτές αυτό, αλλά επί του παρόντος δεν υπάρχει συγκεκριμένη νομοθεσία για τα επιτρεπόμενα όρια ΓΤΟ στα βιολογικά προϊόντα, δεν υπάρχουν επιτρεπόμενα όρια ΓΤΟ στα βιολογικά προϊόντα. Οι ισχύοντες κανόνες βιολογικής παραγωγής απαγορεύουν τη σκόπιμη χρήση ΓΤΟ ή προϊόντων που προέρχονται από ΓΤΟ χωρίς τον καθορισμό ανώτατων ορίων για την τυχαία παρουσία υπολειμμάτων ΓΤΟ. Κατά συνέπεια, δεν ισχύει ο ισχυρισμός ότι «ήδη επιτρέπεται η παρουσία γενετικά τροποποιημένων οργανισμών σε περιεκτικότητα 0,1% στα βιολογικά προϊόντα» βάσει αυτών των κανόνων, όπως δήλωσε στην ερώτησή της η αξιότιμη βουλευτής. Αυτοί οι κανόνες χρονολογούνται από μια περίοδο όπου οι ΓΤΟ δεν καλλιεργούνταν ή εισάγονταν σε ευρεία κλίμακα. Είναι προφανές ότι αυτή η κατάσταση έχει αλλάξει τώρα. Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής διατηρεί την απαγόρευση της σκόπιμης χρήσης ΓΤΟ ή προϊόντων που προέρχονται από ΓΤΟ. Εντούτοις, προτείνουμε ότι ένας φορέας εκμετάλλευσης μπορεί να εμπιστεύεται τις επισημάνσεις των ΓΤ όταν διασφαλίζει ότι κανένας ΓΤΟ δεν θα εισέλθει στην παραγωγή του. Αυτές οι επισημάνσεις παρέχουν πραγματικά στοιχεία καθώς, σήμερα, οι ΓΤΟ ή τα προϊόντα που προέρχονται από ΓΤΟ πρέπει γενικά να χαρακτηρίζονται ως ΓΤ σύμφωνα με την κοινοτική νομοθεσία. Αυτό de facto σημαίνει ότι το ίδιο όριο του 0,9% για την τυχαία παρουσία υπολειμμάτων ΓΤΟ ισχύει στα βιολογικά προϊόντα όπως και σε άλλα προϊόντα. Πιστεύουμε ότι αν προσπαθήσουμε να επιβάλουμε ένα αυστηρότερο όριο επισήμανσης για τα βιολογικά προϊόντα, αυτό θα δυσκολέψει πολύ περισσότερο τους παραγωγούς βιολογικών προϊόντων, διότι γνωρίζουμε ότι η απόλυτη καθαρότητα είναι ανέφικτη στην πραγματικότητα. Παρά ταύτα όμως –και θα ήθελα να το τονίσω αυτό– τούτο δεν σημαίνει, όπως δηλώνει η αξιότιμη βουλευτής, ότι η πρόταση «αύξησε το ποσοστό επιτρεπόμενης παρουσίας ΓΤΟ σε 0,9%». Ο φορέας εκμετάλλευσης θα πρέπει να συνεχίσει να λαμβάνει όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για να αποφευχθεί η παρουσία ΓΤΟ! Αυτό που, αντιθέτως, θα αλλάξει πραγματικά σύμφωνα με την πρότασή μας είναι ότι ένα προϊόν που επισημαίνεται ως ΓΤ δεν θα μπορεί πλέον να επισημαίνεται ταυτόχρονα και ως βιολογικό αν υπερβαίνει το όριο του 0,9%, κάτι που σήμερα είναι δυνατόν να συμβεί στο πλαίσιο της ισχύουσας νομοθεσίας. Όσον αφορά τις πτυχές της υγείας, πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη ότι οι ΓΤΟ μπορούν να διατεθούν στην αγορά κατόπιν μιας ειδικής διαδικασίας αδειοδότησης που εφαρμόζεται κατά περίπτωση. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εφαρμόζει ίσως την πιο αυστηρή και σκληρή διαδικασία αξιολόγησης κινδύνου και αδειοδότησης για τους ΓΤΟ στον κόσμο και αυτό καλύπτει τις πτυχές τόσο του περιβάλλοντος όσο και της υγείας. Για τον λόγο αυτόν, η συζήτηση για την τυχαία παρουσία ΓΤΟ δεν σχετίζεται με θέματα ασφάλειας. Εν κατακλείδι, πρέπει πραγματικά να τονίσω και πάλι ότι σε σχέση με την τυχαία μόλυνση των βιολογικών προϊόντων από ΓΤΟ, η υπό συζήτηση πρόταση ισοδυναμεί με μια πολύ σημαντική ενίσχυση της αυστηρότητας των κανόνων και όχι, όπως συχνά αναφέρεται, με αποδυνάμωσή τους. Αυτό είναι πολύ σημαντικό. Στην πραγματικότητα, η κατάσταση γίνεται πιο αυστηρή."@el¹⁰ ". La pregunta de su Señoría da a entender que la Comisión ha propuesto aumentar el nivel aceptable de contaminación accidental de productos biológicos con OMG del 0,1 % al 0,9 %. Me complace tener la oportunidad de aclarar esta cuestión, porque me la han planteado tanto a mí como a mis servicios en numerosas ocasiones y en numerosos foros diferentes. En mi opinión, esta inquietud se debe a que nuestra propuesta y la legislación vigente en materia de productos biológicos y OMG han sido mal entendidas. Decir que nuestra propuesta pretende «permitir un contenido del 0,9 % de OMG en los productos etiquetados como biológicos» es una interpretación totalmente errónea. Me gustaría explicar por qué. No todos los consumidores lo saben, pero actualmente no existe una legislación específica sobre límites máximos autorizados de OMG en los productos biológicos, no existen límites máximos autorizados de OMG en los productos biológicos. Las normas vigentes en materia de productos biológicos prohíben el uso deliberado de OMG o de productos derivados de OMG sin establecer un límite máximo para la presencia involuntaria de trazas de OMG. Por lo tanto, no se pueden decir que estas normas «ya autorizan una contaminación del 0,1 % de OMG en los productos etiquetados como biológicos», como señala su Señoría en su pregunta. Estas normas datan de un período en el que los OMG no eran objeto de un cultivo o importación generalizada. Obviamente, esta situación ha cambiado. La propuesta de la Comisión mantiene la prohibición de utilizar deliberadamente OMG o productos derivados de los mismos. No obstante, proponemos que un operador pueda utilizar las etiquetas sobre modificación genética cuando garantiza que su producción está libre de OMG. Estas etiquetas prueban efectivamente, al día de hoy, que los OMG o los productos derivados de estos en general han de ser etiquetados como tales de conformidad con la legislación comunitaria en la materia. Esto significa de hecho que el mismo límite máximo del 0,9 % previsto para la presencia no intencionada de trazas de OMG se aplica a los productos biológicos y a otros productos. Consideramos que si intentáramos imponer un límite más estricto en las etiquetas de los productos biológicos, tan solo complicaríamos la vida a los productores biológicos, porque somos concientes de que en la práctica no es posible lograr una pureza absoluta. Aún así, esto no significa –y quisiera recalcarlo– que la propuesta «aumente el nivel de contaminación autorizada con OMG al 0,9 %», como afirma su Señoría. El operador tendrá que seguir adoptando todas las medidas necesarias para evitar la presencia de OMG. En cambio, lo que si cambiaría en virtud de nuestra propuesta es que un producto etiquetado como modificado genéticamente no podría llevar al mismo tiempo la etiqueta de producto biológico si se supera el límite máximo del 0,9 %, cosa que de hecho es posible hoy con arreglo a la legislación vigente. En cuanto a los aspectos sanitarios, debemos tener en cuenta que los OMG solo podrán comercializarse tras un procedimiento específico de autorización caso por caso. La Unión Europea cuenta posiblemente con el procedimiento más estricto de evaluación de riesgos y autorización de OMG del mundo, que abarca tanto los aspectos ambientales como sanitarios. Por esta razón, el debate sobre la presencia no intencionada de OMG no tiene que ver con cuestiones de seguridad. En conclusión, debo destacar una vez más, en relación con la contaminación accidental de productos biológicos con OMG, que la propuesta en cuestión representa actualmente un refuerzo muy importante de las normas y no una relajación de las mismas, como se ha afirmado a menudo. Esto es muy importante, pues realmente refuerza la situación."@es²⁰ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@et⁵ "Arvoisan parlamentin jäsenen kysymyksestä saa sen vaikutelman, että komissio olisi ehdottanut luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden satunnaisesta saastumisesta johtuvan sallitun GMO-pitoisuuden tasoa nostettavaksi 0,1 prosentista 0,9 prosenttiin. Olen erittäin tyytyväinen, että minulla on nyt tilaisuus selventää tätä seikkaa, sillä minä ja yksikköni virkamiehet olemme ottaneet asian esille useaan otteeseen eri yhteyksissä. Mielestäni esitetty huolenaihe perustuu ehdotuksemme ja luonnonmukaisia tuotteita ja muuntogeenisiä organismeja koskevan voimassa olevan lainsäädännön virheelliseen tulkintaan. On täysin väärin tulkita, että ehdotuksessamme sallitaan, että "luomutuotteiksi merkityt tuotteet saavat sisältää 0,9 prosenttia muuntogeenisiä organismeja". Selitän, miksi. Kaikki kuluttajat eivät tiedä, ettei tällä hetkellä ole voimassa lainsäädäntöä luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden sallituista GMO-pitoisuuksista, eli muuntogeeniset organismit eivät ole sallittuja luonnonmukaisissa tuotteissa. Voimassa olevissa luonnonmukaista tuotantoa koskevissa säännöissä kielletään muuntogeenisten organismien tai muuntogeenisistä organismeista valmistettujen tuotteiden tarkoituksellinen käyttö, eikä niissä aseteta raja-arvoja tahattomien GMO-jäämien pitoisuuksille. Siksi näissä säännöissä ei todellakaan sallita, että "luomutuotteiksi merkityt tuotteet saavat sisältää 0,1 prosenttia muuntogeenisiä organismeja", kuten arvoisa parlamentin jäsen kysymyksessään väittää. Säännöt ovat peräisin ajalta, jolloin muuntogeenisiä organismeja ei vielä viljelty tai tuotu maahan yleisesti. Tilanne on nyt tietenkin muuttunut. Komission ehdotuksessa säilytetään muuntogeenisten organismien tai muuntogeenisistä organismeista valmistettujen tuotteiden tarkoituksellista käyttöä koskeva kielto. Ehdotamme kuitenkin, että viljelijä voi luottaa muuntogeenisiä organismeja koskeviin merkintöihin varmistaessaan, ettei hänen tuotantonsa sisällä muuntogeenisiä organismeja. Nämä merkinnät tarjoavat tosiasiallisen näytön, sillä tällä hetkellä muuntogeenisten organismien tai muuntogeenisistä organismeista valmistettujen tuotteiden merkinnöistä on yhteisön lainsäädännön nojalla yleisesti käytävä ilmi, että ne ovat sellaisia. Tämä tarkoittaa tosiasiallisesti sitä, että luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden tahattomien GMO-jäämien pitoisuuteen sovelletaan samaa 0,9 prosentin raja-arvoa kuin muihinkin tuotteisiin. Komissio katsoo, että jos se asettaisi luonnonmukaisille tuotteille tiukemmat GMO-pitoisuuden raja-arvon merkintävaatimukset, se ainoastaan vaikeuttaisi huomattavasti luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden viljelijöiden toimintaa, sillä komissio ymmärtää, etteivät tuotteet voi käytännössä olla täysin puhtaita. Haluan korostaa, ettei tämä silti tarkoita, että ehdotuksella nostetaan sallittua GMO-pitoisuuden tasoa 0,9 prosenttiin, kuten arvoisa parlamentin jäsen väittää. Toimijoiden on edelleen toteutettava asianmukaisia toimia välttääkseen muuntogeenisten organismien esiintymisen tuotteissaan. Sen sijaan ehdotuksellamme pyritään muuttamaan se, ettei muuntogeeniseksi tuotteeksi merkittyä tuotetta enää voida samanaikaisesti merkitä luonnonmukaisesti tuotetuksi, jos tuotteen GMO-pitoisuus on yli 0,9 prosenttia, mikä on itse asiassa mahdollista voimassa olevan lainsäädännön nojalla. Terveysnäkökohdista on huomattava, että muuntogeenisiä organismeja voidaan saattaa markkinoille vasta sen jälkeen, kun ne ovat läpikäyneet tapauskohtaisen lupamenettelyn. Euroopan unionilla on ilmeisesti maailman tiukimmat ja täsmällisimmät muuntogeenisiä organismeja koskevat riskinarvioinnit ja lupamenettelyt, jotka kattavat sekä ympäristö- että terveysnäkökohdat. Tästä syystä tahattomia GMO-pitoisuuksia koskeva keskustelu ei liity turvallisuusnäkökohtiin. Haluan lopuksi korostaa jälleen kerran, että nyt käsiteltävässä ehdotuksessa tiukennetaan merkittävästi sääntöjä, jotka koskevat luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden satunnaista saastumista muuntogeenisillä organismeilla, eikä sääntöjä todellakaan heikennetä, kuten usein on väitetty. Tämä on erittäin tärkeää huomata. Sääntöjä itse asiassa tiukennetaan."@fi⁷ ". La question de la députée donne l’impression que la Commission a proposé de faire passer le niveau acceptable de contamination fortuite des produits biologiques par des OGM de 0,1 % à 0,9 %. Je suis très heureuse d’avoir l’occasion de clarifier personnellement cette question, car le problème a été abordé par moi-même et par mes services à de nombreuses reprises et dans de nombreux forums différents. À mon sens, ces inquiétudes se fondent sur une incompréhension de notre proposition et de la législation existante applicable aux produits biologiques et aux OGM. Considérer que notre proposition vise à «autoriser une teneur de 0,9 % d’OGM dans les produits étiquetés comme biologiques» constitue manifestement une interprétation erronée. Je voudrais vous expliquer pourquoi. Tous les consommateurs ne le savent pas, mais il n’existe actuellement aucune législation spécifique sur les seuils d’OGM autorisés dans les produits biologiques. Les règles de production biologique existantes interdisent l’utilisation délibérée d’OGM ou de produits dérivés d’OGM sans fixer de limite à la présence fortuite de traces d’OGM. Dès lors, il est absolument faux «qu’une contamination de 0,1 % d’OGM était déjà tolérée dans les produits étiquetés comme biologiques», comme l’a affirmé l’honorable députée dans sa question. Ces dispositions datent de l’époque où la culture ou l’importation d’OGM était globalement inexistante. Manifestement, cette situation a changé. La proposition de la Commission maintient l’interdiction appliquée à l’utilisation délibérée d’OGM ou de produits dérivés d’OGM. Toutefois, nous proposons qu’un opérateur puisse faire appel à un étiquetage GM lorsqu’il assure que sa production est dépourvue d’OGM. Ces étiquetages constituent une preuve efficace puisque, aujourd’hui, les OGM ou les produits dérivés d’OGM doivent généralement être étiquetés en tant que tels selon la législation communautaire. Ce qui signifie de fait que ce même seuil de 0,9% de présence accidentelle de traces d’OGM s’applique aux produits biologiques ainsi qu’aux autres produits. Nous estimons que si nous avions essayé d’imposer un seuil d’étiquetage plus strict, nous ne ferions rien d’autre que de compliquer la vie des producteurs biologiques, car nous comprenons qu’une pureté complète est irréalisable dans la pratique. Même dans ce cas - et je tiens à souligner ce point -, cela ne veut pas dire, comme le déclare l’honorable députée, que la proposition «a porté le seuil de contamination autorisée par des OGM à 0,9 %». L’opérateur devra continuer à prendre toutes les mesures requises afin d’éviter la présence d’OGM! En revanche, ce qui changerait réellement grâce à notre proposition, c’est qu’un produit étiqueté GM ne pourrait plus aussi être étiqueté biologique si le seuil de 0,9% est dépassé - ce qui est en réalité possible dans le cadre de la législation actuelle. Pour ce qui est des aspects sanitaires, il convient de se rappeler que les OGM ne peuvent être commercialisés qu’au terme d’une procédure d’autorisation spécifique au cas par cas. L’Union européenne applique probablement la procédure d’évaluation des risques et d’autorisation la plus sévère et la plus stricte du monde en matière d’OGM, laquelle couvre les aspects environnementaux et d’homologation. Par conséquent, le débat sur la présence accidentelle d’OGM n’est pas lié aux questions de sécurité. En conclusion, je me dois véritablement de souligner une nouvelle fois qu’en matière de contamination fortuite des produits biologiques par des OGM, la proposition actuellement examinée relève d’un durcissement très net des règles et non, comme on le croit souvent, d’un relâchement. C’est un fait capital. Il s’agit véritablement d’un durcissement de la situation."@fr⁸ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@hu¹¹ "L’interrogazione dell’onorevole deputata suscita l’impressione che la Commissione abbia proposto di aumentare il livello accettabile di contaminazione accidentale dei prodotti biologici da parte di OGM dallo 0,1 allo 0,9 per cento. Sono molto lieta di avere l’opportunità di fare chiarezza al riguardo, in quanto tale questione è stata richiamata alla mia attenzione e a quella dei miei servizi in varie occasioni e in molte sedi diverse. Sono del parere che le preoccupazioni manifestate siano basate su un’erronea interpretazione della nostra proposta e della legislazione esistente in materia di prodotti biologici e di OGM. L’affermazione secondo cui la proposta è volta “ad autorizzare un tenore dello 0,9 per cento di OGM nei prodotti etichettati come biologici” è un evidente travisamento della realtà e vorrei spiegarne i motivi. Non tutti i consumatori lo sanno, ma attualmente non esiste alcuna normativa specifica riguardo alle soglie ammissibili di presenza di OGM nei prodotti biologici. Le disposizioni vigenti in materia di produzione biologica vietano l’uso deliberato di OGM o di prodotti derivati da OGM senza stabilire alcuna soglia per la presenza accidentale di tracce di OGM. E’ pertanto impossibile che, a seguito di tali disposizioni, “una contaminazione dello 0,1 per cento di OGM fosse già tollerata nei prodotti etichettati come biologici”, come l’onorevole deputata sostiene nella sua interrogazione. Le disposizioni in questione risalgono a un periodo in cui gli OGM non venivano generalmente coltivati o importati. E’ ovvio che questa situazione è ormai cambiata. La proposta della Commissione mantiene il divieto dell’uso deliberato di OGM o di prodotti derivati da OGM, tuttavia proponiamo che un operatore possa avvalersi delle etichette indicanti il contenuto di materiale geneticamente modificato per garantire l’assenza di OGM nella propria produzione. Queste etichette costituiscono una prova effettiva in quanto attualmente, in base alla legislazione comunitaria, gli OGM o i prodotti derivati da OGM in generale devono essere etichettati come geneticamente modificati. Questo significa di fatto che ai prodotti biologici si applica la stessa soglia dello 0,9 per cento di presenza accidentale di tracce di OGM prevista per gli altri prodotti. Riteniamo che, se cercassimo di imporre un limite di etichettatura più rigoroso per i prodotti biologici, complicheremmo semplicemente la vita ai produttori biologici, in quanto siamo consapevoli che nella pratica è impossibile ottenere la purezza assoluta. Questo non significa comunque, e vorrei sottolinearlo, che la proposta “ha portato la soglia di contaminazione da OGM consentita allo 0,9 per cento”, come l’onorevole deputata afferma. L’operatore dovrà continuare ad adottare tutte le misure adeguate per evitare la presenza di OGM. Per contro, ciò che cambierebbe davvero a seguito della nostra proposta è che un prodotto etichettato come geneticamente modificato non potrebbe più essere al contempo etichettato come biologico se si supera la soglia dello 0,9 per cento, com’è possibile fare attualmente in base alla legislazione vigente. Per quanto riguarda gli aspetti inerenti alla salute, si deve considerare che gli OGM possono essere immessi sul mercato soltanto a seguito di una specifica procedura di autorizzazione caso per caso. L’Unione europea dispone probabilmente della procedura di valutazione dei rischi e di autorizzazione più rigorosa e attenta al mondo, e che riguarda gli aspetti sia sanitari che ambientali. Per questo motivo, la discussione sulla presenza accidentale di OGM non implica questioni di sicurezza. In conclusione, devo sottolineare ancora una volta che in relazione alla contaminazione accidentale dei prodotti biologici da parte di OGM, la proposta in discussone al momento rappresenta un inasprimento molto importante delle norme e non, come è stato spesso asserito, un loro indebolimento. E’ molto importante rendersi conto che l’intenzione è davvero quella di creare condizioni di maggior rigore."@it¹² "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@lt¹⁴ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@lv¹³ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@mt¹⁵ "De vraagstelling van de afgevaardigde suggereert dat de Commissie heeft voorgesteld om het aanvaardbare niveau van onvoorziene besmetting van biologische producten met GGO’s te verhogen van 0,1 procent tot 0,9 procent. Ik ben erg blij dat ik in dezen opheldering kan verschaffen omdat hierover bij vele gelegenheden en in vele verschillende fora vragen zijn gesteld aan mijzelf en mijn diensten. Volgens mij zijn de geuite zorgen gebaseerd op een verkeerd begrip van ons voorstel en van de bestaande wetgeving over biologische producten en GGO’s. Dat in ons voorstel zou worden toegestaan dat als “biologisch” geëtiketteerde producten 0,9 procent aan GGO’s bevatten, is een duidelijke misvatting. Ik wil graag uitleggen waarom dat zo is. Niet alle consumenten weten dat er op dit moment geen specifieke wetgeving over toelaatbare GGO-niveaus in biologische producten bestaat. Dergelijke drempels zijn er eenvoudigweg niet. In de huidige regels voor biologische productie wordt het opzettelijke gebruik van GGO's of van GGO's afgeleide producten verboden. Daarbij wordt geen drempel vastgesteld voor de onbedoelde aanwezigheid van sporen van GGO’s. Er is dus geen sprake van dat een besmetting met 0,1 procent aan GGO's in als “biologisch” geëtiketteerde producten reeds was toegestaan, zoals de afgevaardigde in haar vraag verwoordt. Deze regels dateren uit een tijd dat GGO’s nog niet op grote schaal werden verbouwd of ingevoerd. Deze situatie is nu duidelijk veranderd. In het voorstel van de Commissie wordt het verbod op het opzettelijke gebruik van GGO’s of van GGO’s afgeleide producten gehandhaafd. We stellen echter ook voor dat een ondernemer op GGO-etiketten moet kunnen vertrouwen wanneer hij of zij er zeker van wil zijn dat er bij zijn of haar productie geen GGO’s worden gebruikt. Deze etiketten bieden afdoende informatie, omdat GGO’s of van GGO’s afgeleide producten tegenwoordig op grond van communautaire wetgeving als “GM” dienen te worden aangemerkt. Dit houdt in dat dezelfde drempel van 0,9 procent voor de onbedoelde aanwezigheid van GGO-sporen van toepassing is op biologische producten en op andere producten. Naar onze mening zouden we het de biologische producenten veel moeilijker maken wanneer we een hogere etiketteringsdrempel voor biologische producten zouden opleggen. We realiseren ons namelijk dat volledige zuiverheid in de praktijk onhaalbaar is. Ik wil evenwel benadrukken dat dit niet betekent dat het percentage toegestane GGO-besmetting tot 0,9 procent is verhoogd, zoals de afgevaardigde stelt. De ondernemer moet alle nodige maatregelen treffen om de aanwezigheid van GGO’s te vermijden! Wat met ons voorstel wel verandert, is dat een als GGO geëtiketteerd product niet langer als biologisch kan worden geëtiketteerd als de drempel van 0,9 procent wordt overschreden. Volgens de huidige wetgeving is dat wel mogelijk. Wat de gezondheidsaspecten betreft mogen GGO’s uitsluitend op de markt worden gebracht na een specifieke individuele goedkeuringsprocedure. De Europese Unie heeft aantoonbaar de strengste procedure voor risicobeoordeling en goedkeuring van GGO's ter wereld. Deze procedure betreft milieu- en gezondheidsaspecten. Daarom heeft de discussie over de onbedoelde aanwezigheid van GGO’s niet te maken met veiligheid. Tot slot wil ik nog eens beklemtonen dat, waar het gaat om de onvoorziene besmetting van biologische producten door GGO’s, het voorstel dat nu ter bespreking voorligt, neerkomt op een zeer belangrijke aanscherping van de regels en niet op een afzwakking van die regels, zoals zo vaak is gesuggereerd. Het is van groot belang dat te beseffen. De voorschriften zijn juist stringenter geworden."@nl³ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@pl¹⁶ "A pergunta da Senhora Deputada dá a impressão de que a Comissão propôs elevar o teor autorizado de contaminação acidental dos produtos orgânicos por OGM de 0,1% para 0,9%. Fico muito feliz com a oportunidade de esclarecer este ponto, já que se trata de uma questão com que eu e os meus serviços temos sido confrontados muitas vezes e em muitos fóruns diferentes. A meu ver, as preocupações resultam de uma deficiente interpretação da nossa proposta e da legislação vigente em matéria de produtos orgânicos e OGM. Ver na nossa proposta o propósito de “autorizar um teor de 0,9% de OGM em produtos rotulados com a designação de ‘orgânicos’” constitui uma interpretação manifestamente errónea. Gostaria de explicar porquê. Embora nem todos os consumidores estejam cientes disso, actualmente não existe qualquer legislação específica que estabeleça teores-limite de OGM aceitáveis nos produtos orgânicos, não há teores-limite de OGM nos produtos orgânicos. As normas de produção orgânica em vigor interditam a utilização deliberada de OGM e respectivos derivados sem fixarem qualquer tecto à presença involuntária de vestígios de OGM. Não é verdade, pois, que “já se autorize a presença de 0,1% de OGM nos produtos rotulados com a designação de orgânicos”, como afirma a ilustre Senhora Deputada na sua pergunta. As normas em causa remontam a um tempo em que não se cultivavam nem importavam OGM em larga escala. Entretanto, a situação alterou-se, obviamente. A proposta da Comissão mantém a interdição do uso deliberado de OGM e produtos derivados. Contudo, propomos que um operador se possa basear nos rótulos relativos à manipulação genética para efeitos de assegurar a isenção de OGM da sua produção. Os rótulos em causa constituem prova efectiva, dado que, hoje, de acordo com a legislação comunitária, todos os OGM e produtos deles derivados têm de ser rotulados como tal. Isso significa, de facto, que o mesmo limite de 0,9% para a presença involuntária de vestígios de OGM é aplicável aos produtos orgânicos e aos restantes produtos. Pensamos que, se tentássemos impor um limite mais rigoroso para efeitos de rotulagem dos produtos orgânicos, isso só tornaria muito mais complicada a vida dos produtores orgânicos, porque sabemos que uma pureza absoluta é inatingível na prática. Mesmo assim – e queria salientar este ponto – não é verdade, como pretende a ilustre Deputada, que a proposta “aumente a percentagem de OGM autorizada para 0,9 %”. O operador terá de continuar a tomar todas as medidas apropriadas para evitar a presença de OGM! O que, pelo contrário, mudará realmente com a nossa proposta é a circunstância de um produto rotulado como GM deixar de poder ser rotulado ao mesmo tempo como orgânico no caso de exceder o limite de 0,9%, coisa que hoje é possível na realidade, ao abrigo da legislação em vigor. No que toca aos aspectos de saúde, é preciso ter em conta que os OGM só poderão ser colocados no mercado na sequência de um procedimento de autorização específico caso-a-caso. O procedimento de avaliação de risco e autorização da União Europeia é, porventura, o mais rigoroso e exigente do mundo em matéria de OGM e cobre tanto os aspectos ambientais como os de saúde. Por essa razão, a discussão acerca da presença involuntária de OGM não envolve questões de saúde. Para concluir, não posso deixar de sublinhar uma vez mais que, no que diz respeito a contaminação acidental de produtos orgânicos por OGM, a proposta que está em discussão representa um endurecimento muito considerável, e não um enfraquecimento, do regime vigente, como frequentemente tem sido sugerido. Isto é muito importante. Trata-se, realmente, de endurecer o regime."@pt¹⁷ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@sk¹⁸ "The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why. Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question. These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production. These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products. We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs! What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation. On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues. In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation."@sl¹⁹ ". Ledamotens frågor ger intrycket av att kommissionen har föreslagit en höjning av den acceptabla nivån av tillfällig kontamination av ekologiska produkter med genetiskt modifierade organismer (GMO) från 0,1 till 0,9 procent. Det gläder mig att få tillfälle att klargöra detta, för frågan har tagits upp vid ett flertal tillfällen, med såväl mig som mina tjänsteenheter i många olika forum. Enligt min uppfattning grundas oron på ett missförstånd av vårt förslag och av befintlig lagstiftning om ekologiska produkter och GMO. Att läsa vårt förslag som att vi vill tillåta 0,9 procent GMO i produkter som märks som ekologiska är att misstolka det. Jag ska förklara varför. Det är inte alla konsumenter som är medvetna om detta, men det finns för närvarande ingen specifik lagstiftning om tröskelvärden för GMO i ekologiska produkter, det finns inga bestämmelser om tröskelvärden för GMO i ekologiska produkter. Enligt de befintliga bestämmelserna för ekologisk produktion är det förbjudet med avsiktlig användning av GMO eller genetiskt modifierade produkter, men det finns inget tröskelvärde för spår av GMO vid oavsiktlig förekomst. Det är alltså inte fråga om att en blandning av 0,1 procent GMO i produkter som märks som ekologiska redan är tillåten enligt dessa bestämmelser, som ledamoten påstod i sin fråga. Dessa bestämmelser går tillbaka till en tid då GMO i allmänhet inte odlades eller importerades. Situationen ser naturligtvis annorlunda ut nu. I kommissionens förslag upprätthålls förbudet mot avsiktlig användning av GMO och genetiskt modifierade produkter. Vi föreslår dock att en aktör ska kunna använda sig av GM-etiketter som en försäkran av att hans/hennes produkter inte innehåller GMO. Användandet av dessa etiketter utgör en effektiv tydlighet, eftersom GMO och genetiskt modifierade produkter i dag i allmänhet måste märkas som GM i enlighet med gemenskapens regelverk. Detta innebär i praktiken att samma tröskelvärde på 0,9 procent för en oavsiktlig förekomst av spår av GMO gäller för ekologiska produkter som för andra produkter. Vi tror att det bara skulle göra situationen mycket mer komplicerad för producenter av ekologiska produkter om vi försökte att införa ett lägre tröskelvärde för märkning av ekologiska produkter, för vi inser att en fullständig renhet är ouppnåelig i praktiken. Detta innebär emellertid inte – och jag vill betona detta – att vi i förslaget, som ledamoten säger, har ökat den tillåtna nivån av kontamination med GMO till 0,9 procent. Aktören måste fortsatt vidta alla skäliga åtgärder för att undvika att dennes produkter innehåller GMO! Vad som däremot verkligen skulle förändras med vårt förslag är att en produkt som är märkt som genetiskt modifierad inte längre samtidigt skulle kunna märkas som ekologisk om tröskelvärdet på 0,9 procent överstigs, vilket faktiskt är möjligt i dag enligt den befintliga lagstiftningen. Vad gäller hälsoaspekterna har vi övervägt möjligheten att GMO bara ska kunna säljas på marknaden efter ett särskilt förfarande med förhandstillstånd för varje enskilt fall. Jag vågar påstå att Europeiska unionen har de strängaste och hårdaste riskbedömningarna och förfarandena med förhandstillstånd för GMO i hela världen, och detta gäller såväl miljömässiga aspekter som hälsoaspekter. Diskussionen om oavsiktlig förekomst av GMO relaterar därför inte till frågor om säkerhet. Avslutningsvis vill jag verkligen återigen betona att det förslag som diskuteras för närvarande innebär en mycket betydelsefull skärpning av bestämmelserna i fråga om tillfällig kontamination av ekologiska produkter med GMO, och inte, som det ofta framställts, en försvagning. Detta är mycket viktigt. Det innebär verkligen en skärpning av situationen."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Mariann Fischer Boel,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4}