Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001023.11.1-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the rapporteur, Mrs Klass, for their extremely positive reception of the Commission’s proposal. The Commission appreciates the wide consensus on its proposal. Its aim is to strengthen the internal market in the sector in question, to update the legislation in the light of technical and scientific progress which has taken place since it was last updated and to ensure that authorisation for genetically modified varieties can only be granted if the appropriate steps have been taken to avoid endangering human health or the environment.
With regard to the third point, in its current form, the proposal contains references both to the development of a specific procedure for assessing the risk to the environment, which is similar to the procedure laid down by directive 90/220 in terms of the risks to man and the environment, and to the criteria and assessment principles laid down in Regulation 258/97 on novel foods and novel food ingredients.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has tabled 26 amendments. The Commission is able to accept the majority of them, that is 24 out of 26 amendments, as they are currently worded or with minor changes relating to the way they are worded or presented. For example, the proposal to recognise the specific characteristics of the genotype, referred to in Amendments Nos 4, 12, 15, 16 and 20, will be incorporated by changing the wording of the text.
The genetic diversity of the varieties with genotypes which are suitable for specific local environments will be taken into consideration in discussions on the appropriateness of continuing the possibility of marketing material for propagating these varieties, on the basis of Article 3, paragraph 5, point A of the directive.
With reference to the other two amendments, Amendments Nos 2 and 18, we can only partially accept them for the reason that certain aspects are unjustifiably aggressive towards other countries – Amendment 2 – or because the reference to the Commission’s obligation to provide greater resources should a common catalogue of varieties be compiled – Amendment No 18 – is superfluous.
Lastly, we can accept Amendment No 27, tabled by both Mr Lavarra and Mr Garot. I am happy to be able to inform you that we can also accept Amendments Nos 35 to 40, tabled by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, which are intended to reinforce the transposal of the safety and management requirements according to directive 90/220.
However, we cannot accept Amendments Nos 28 to 34 tabled by Mrs Isler-Béguin and others, for they would involve revoking the entire part of the directive which contains references to the GMO varieties and the related risk assessment. Moreover, these amendments have already been discussed but not accepted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
We cannot accept Amendment No 41, tabled by Mrs Schierhuber, either, for it concerns an excessively detailed definition in the light of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. If we were to accept this amendment, we would be running the risk of creating artificial barriers to trade, which would be contrary to the principle aim of the proposal for a directive which is to consolidate the internal market.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention and, once again, thank you to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples