Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the two draft regulations and reports we are debating today are important supplements to the Directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, which we adopted last year. Rules on traceability and labelling are obviously vital, partly so that effective quality control can be carried out but also so that products can be withdrawn from the market if unforeseen damage to our health or the environment should occur and, finally, so that consumers, as consumers, can also be given a real choice between GM and non-GM products. I am therefore able fully to support the policy of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, designed to ensure that we obtain an effective system of traceability and that, as consumers, we are given a free choice. We are to be informed as to whether a product consists of, or contains, genetically modified organisms and we are also to be informed as to whether a product has been made from genetically modified organisms. That also applies, of course, to animal products such as milk, eggs and meat from animals fed on GM products. As consumers, we are obviously entitled to be informed both about the content of the foods we consume and about the methods used to produce them. I am also in favour of the limit for unintentional pollution by genetically modified organisms being set as low as it possibly can be, and at no higher than 0.5%.
Allow me now to make an observation about the multinational chemical concerns behind GM products, as well as about the British Government which is, of course, adopting the extraordinary position that there must be no labelling, except for businesses’ being allowed to label their products GM-free. That would of course be a disastrous solution. The first reason for this is that companies would probably not make very much use of the scheme, for it would of course be voluntary. Not very many firms would make use of it solely as a way of behaving responsibly. The second reason, however, is that such a scheme would leave consumers completely in the lurch. All products not labelled GM-free could of course be either GM or non-GM products. The scheme would not provide consumers with the relevant information, and that is of course also the intention behind the chemical industry’s wishes.
Finally, it would become completely impossible to trace genetically modified organisms if there were no positive labelling of these at all the stages of production and distribution. There would then of course be no possibility of tracing genetically modified organisms which might have proved to have had harmful effects on our health or on the environment. In the light of history, one can only wonder at, in particular, the British Government’s going in for a scheme that interferes with traceability in the area of foodstuffs. I simply do not understand industry’s marketing strategy for GM products. It argues the whole time in favour of giving consumers as little information as possible. Does it really believe that confidence in genetically manipulated foodstuffs can be created in that way? That, of course, makes no sense at all, and all I can say, therefore, is that, as a result, I well appreciate the response of the large majority of European consumers. As a result of their constantly encountering the attitude that consumers should know as little as possible, they lack confidence in these products."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples