Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-260"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.10.2-260"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like first of all to thank Mr Bowe for the work that has been done on the recommendation for second reading on amendment of the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. I think it is a very competent piece of work, and I think some important improvements have been made to the common position. I shall single out the points I think are most important. First and foremost, I think it is right that we should now have an actual ban proposed on the use of substances which can produce resistance to antibiotics. I think it is important for health reasons. The second point I would make is that, unlike Mr Liese, I am in favour of including proposals to the effect that measures should, if possible, be taken to prevent gene-transfer from GMOs to other organisms, otherwise known as GMO contamination. I also think it is important that risks should not be assessed on a case-by-case basis when applications and requests concerning consents are examined. Instead, an attempt should be made to carry out an overall assessment of the accumulated effects of the many consents which are issued upon the fertility of the soil, the food chain, biological diversity and the health issues which are of importance to us as human beings. I think that is a major flaw in current practice in this area. In this connection, I also think that consents ought to be reviewed every ten years, so that they can only be issued for up to ten years at a time. In that way, we can be properly sure that the necessary monitoring is carried out.
I also think it is right that this proposal should provide us with legislation ensuring that, whenever vertical legislation is enacted in specific areas, the same conditions regarding risk assessment and monitoring should be complied with as also apply in the case of the general directive. Finally, I would call attention to the question of objective liability. I agree with the original proposal in Mr Bowe’s report to the effect that businesses seeking consents should be made objectively liable and that liability insurance must also be taken out in connection with an application for consent. If insurance cannot be taken out to cover such circumstances, then the risk in granting a licence is too great. I hope we shall see the adoption of these amendments designed to tighten up on the common position. If they are adopted, I also believe we shall obtain a legal basis for granting future consents for GMOs which serves our interests and which will provide the necessary security. In that way, we shall, in actual fact, obtain the legal basis that should have been in place before the first consent for new GMO crops was issued. In my opinion, the present legal basis is far too weak."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples