Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-09-Speech-3-220-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20120509.21.3-220-000"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@cs1
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@da2
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@de9
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@el10
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@es21
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@et5
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@fi7
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@fr8
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@hu11
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@it12
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@lt14
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@lv13
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@mt15
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@nl3
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@pl16
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@pt17
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@ro18
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@sk19
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@sl20
"Mr President, some of the debate has been rather emotive, suggesting that we might be opposing this because we are in favour of the patenting of the plants themselves. That is not the case. This paper is full of errors. Look at paragraph 4, which not only excludes from patenting products derived from conventional breeding, but also seeks to remove from patenting innovations in things like smart breeding. There is also paragraph 7, which talks of a comprehensive breeders’ exemption, which is not the case. This depiction of us as supporting the patenting of plants simply does not ring true. I am speaking as a farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers, and I also have experience in plant breeding – which was the subject of my PhD – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance here."@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Phil Bennion (ALDE ). -"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,2,22,7,3,10,13,9,21,12,17,8
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Romanian.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz
23http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph