Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I must ask why we have two reports at all. Is it just to suit two DGs which could not come up with a cooperative proposal? Can I say you have added to the confusion – as if it were needed – on this particular topic and I am disappointed because we now see two completely different approaches to the same issue, which has done nothing at all to add light and not heat to the subject before us.
For many, the very expression 'genetically modified organism', is a concept lifted directly from science fiction. The scientific fact, however, of genetic engineering is that this technology has already improved the quality of life for so many, and with a balanced and practical regulatory environment, it has an exciting future in the whole pharmaceutical, medical, food and feed areas, to name but a few.
We need to lift the moratorium and have a rational regulatory approach to GM technology to allow consumers to make informed choices. I must say, however, that I am extremely disappointed with the industry's lack of defence of their products and processes and, indeed, even their field trials, against unjustified scare stories. It is next to lamentable. They do not deserve any of us standing up here defending their product or their future, because they have gone to ground and covered their head from day one and have made it a very difficult catch-up job now to get a rational common-sense debate in this area. They must take it on the head for failing to defend their products.
I am also concerned that to some extent the approach lacks scientific rigour in this area. I fully support my colleague Mr Trakatellis's approach. If what we do and the legislation we pass is not soundly based in scientific rigour, we bring all the EU regulatory processes into disrepute; and we are going down this road with many of the issues before us in these reports here today. Not only do we lack scientific rigour in our approach, but we are possibly going to come into conflict with the WTO.
We need a precautionary approach but not a preventive one. There would be a very important central role for the new EFSA in this whole area, including the rigorous risk assessment of any GM feed prior to authorisation for use in the EU. There is no analytical method for determining if animal products originate from animals fed GM feed and insistence on such labelling will open the door for misrepresentation, fraud, distortion of competition and so on. The only way to verify will be by on-farm inspections with another army of inspectors. Please do not send us down that road again.
Finally, a plea for the whisky industry: what is the transition situation? They lay down their whiskies to age for up to 12 to 20 years. If we are going to insist on retrospective labelling, how will they be able to compete? Could you put on the record the future of the whisky industry? They are particularly concerned."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples