Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.10.2-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, David Bowe, for his hard work. He really has tried to find compromises on this complicated issue but has not succeeded in finding compromises in all areas which all the Groups here in the House are able to support, which is why we shall be voting on one or two points tomorrow.
Those who know me know that I am not a blind advocate of genetic engineering. Many aspects worry me. I even have mixed feelings about the announcements which we heard last week on the almost complete decoding of the human genome because I think that we do not yet have enough strict rules in the European Union on the application of biotechnology to human beings in this way.
However, today we are debating the release of genetically modified organisms, especially plants. And in my view, and in the view of the PPE, this is a different kettle of fish. The common position is not too weak to guarantee public safety, as some would have us believe; on the contrary, it is very, very strong. It makes provision for a great many rules to govern monitoring, labelling and informing the public. The common position offers an adequate level of safety for both man and the environment, which is why the PPE is against tightening up the common position, especially in certain critical areas.
If certain amendments calling for stricter provisions are accepted, then we can kiss biotechnology in the area of plants goodbye and we can totally ban it right away, but that is not what we want to do.
Take the example of genetic transfer. All we hear about are Frankenstein plants and superweeds. However, if you study the subject in detail, you will see that it is not a fact that cross-pollination from genetically modified plants is always an environmental disaster. I have a key witness here. The former research policy spokesperson for the Greens in the
once said that no Frankenstein plants were growing in the fields. Unfortunately, the Greens did not nominate him again for the
but he is right nonetheless, which is why we have tabled a motion stating that we should keep an eye on these risks but not totally ban genetic transfer.
We are also opposed to discrimination against biotechnology when it comes to liability. We do not want specific genetic engineering liability, we want general environmental liability. It has frequently been said that the Commission must be forced to do something at long last. I share that view but we must first praise Mrs Wallström here: she promised during the hearing in the European Parliament that she would present a White Paper on environmental liability and she has done so. Her predecessor failed to do so for several years and we should now move forward on the basis of this White Paper and decide on specific liability rules to be incorporated in the directive.
The common position is not too weak; in our view it is too strong on certain points. The general 10-year limitation on release consent is impracticable for plant cultivation, which is why we support the motion tabled here by David Bowe that the 10-year period should only apply from the first registration of the plants.
I think that the common position gives us good control of the risks. We should not make the mistake of gambling away biotechnology’s chances, which is why we shall not be voting in favour of all the tabled amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples