Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.3.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am extremely disappointed at the way the second-reading vote on the amendments to the draft directive on procedures for authorising genetically modified organisms (GMOs) went.
Admittedly, we have known since first reading that the principle of banning GMOs, or at least having a moratorium to allow for more in-depth studies, was rejected. But the least we could have expected was for Parliament now to decide to take serious steps to protect the consumer.
Nothing of the kind has happened, however. The European Parliament has just given way on three vital issues, in circumstances I consider shameful:
: Amendments Nos 11 and 37 which called for such GMOs not to be released into the environment were rejected. Instead we have adopted an amendment that simply calls for particular consideration to be given to this problem in order to identify and phase out by 2005 antibiotic resistance markers in GMOs which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment;
: Amendment No 12, which called for measures to be taken to prevent such unintentional transfers, was not adopted. Instead, Parliament adopted Amendment No 38, which is much more vague and simply calls for an assessment of the various forms of risk that might be involved in such transfers;
: to our great indignation, Parliament rejected Amendment No 33 which called for persons legally responsible for releasing these GMOs to assume total liability for any damage they caused to human health or the environment and which required them to take out adequate insurance to compensate for possible damage. Instead, it adopted much weaker amendments that express the hope that, in the future, general legislation will be adopted in relation to environmental liability and that call on the Commission to submit a proposal on the impact of biotechnology on all areas over which the European Union has jurisdiction. Alas, as we already know from the White Paper it prepared on the subject, the Commission is not in favour of compulsory insurance in this area.
We are particularly disgusted that Amendment No 33 was rejected, for if we want to authorise the marketing of products containing GMOs, we should at least ensure that those who sell them assume liability. The pressure groups in the biotechnology industry explain that there is no risk, while at the same time saying that compulsory insurance is impossible because the risk is not insurable. That tells us something. I have never seen an insurer refuse to insure a non-existent risk.
One obscure aspect of this business is that the French Government which, according to the most recent information, includes ecologists, had officially expressed reservations about this Amendment No 33. Once again the biotechnology industry pressure groups have done their job at every level, out of sight of the citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"On banning the release of GMOs containing antibiotic-resistant genes"1
"On the liability and insurance obligations of persons deliberately releasing GMOs"1
"On the risk of unintentional gene -transfers to other organisms"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples