Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-102"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000412.3.3-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"The European Parliament will vote on 12 April, to adopt a new directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are major issues at stake. The time has come to make those who engage in the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms legally responsible for damage to human health and the environment. They should be liable for any damage caused by such releases and they should be required to take out liability insurance just as every driver has to take out liability insurance in case he kills or injures another human being. The argument has been made that this issue should instead be covered by horizontal legislation. It is worth noting, however, that we have heard this argument since discussions about Directive 90/220/EEC first started in 1989. At that time, the Commission promised that liability for environmental damage caused by GMOs would be covered by horizontal legislation, but we have been waiting for more than 10 years for that promise to be fulfilled. We must adopt an immediate and categorical ban on the use of antibiotic resistant genes. Many scientists and organisations, such as the Pasteur Institute and the British Medical Association, have called for a ban on the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes, which do not perform any relevant function on the plants and are therefore completely superfluous. In the common position antibiotic-resistant genes would just “be phased out” in the future, and only if “they may have any adverse effects on human health and the environment”. This would mean that antibiotic-resistant products that have already been authorised would remain. There are many less damaging forms of marker genes available and it is EU policy to prohibit all unnecessary use of antibiotics if there is a risk for human or animal health. The directive should take a clear stand and insist that the use of these marker genes is stopped now. The pharmaceutical industry wants a total exemption from the directive. The Environment Committee adopted two contradictory amendments, one for a total exemption and one tightening up the common position line of a conditional exemption with all the normal environmental risk provisions. It is unacceptable that the industry could be allowed on exemption unless the environmental risk provisions apply."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph