Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.6.4-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President and Mr Purvis, I know one thing and that is that the GMO issue will give me grey hairs. We know from Eurobarometer opinion polls that most people are worried about GMOs. At the same time, they say that they do not know enough about them. Perhaps there is a connection.
This is a very complex and sensitive issue, legally, technically and politically. As I said earlier, we readily admit that we do not have all the answers. However, what we can do – as we have done with other technologies – is to put in place a legal framework to deal with the potential benefits as well as the risks. That is what we have tried to do with the revised Directive 18/2001/EC, traceability and labelling. Consequently it will, for example, affect thresholds when it comes to seed regulation.
I thank you for this debate and I am sure we shall continue it at a later date.
I would like to say to Mrs Breyer that we have looked at those concerns very carefully to ensure that we establish clear legislation – a clear framework – for handling both the potential benefits and the risks of GMOs. That is why we have revised Directive 18/2001/EC to include better risk assessment and better information, so that consumers can make an informed choice. That is why we have proposed further legislation on traceability and labelling. However, it would not be honest to say that if we continue to import seeds, for example, we can guarantee total purity and no adventitious presence of GMOs.
We know that everything in nature escapes – through cross-pollination for example – so closing borders is not a viable solution. We have to be pragmatic and establish levels and thresholds to deal with natural phenomena. We have to look at the situation as it actually is and at the products we import.
This leads me to Mr Trakatellis' question about traceability. The proposals on traceability and labelling, as well as on food and feed, are not based entirely on the detectability of GMOs. Even if they cannot be detected, consumers have the right to know. The current Novel Foods Regulation will be replaced by these proposals and the scope will be broadened to give consumers a choice, even if the GMOs are not detectable. Consumers have the right to be informed of the presence of GMOs in the products they buy, even if the GMOs are not detectable.
I shall comment on two further issues that have been raised. Firstly, on labelling thresholds, the Commission can only take account of existing legislation and, for the time being, a 1% threshold is in force for foodstuffs. This 1% threshold is provided for by the Council regulation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000. Above that 1% threshold, an indication of the presence of a genetic modification in a food is compulsory. As the recital of the regulation states, the 1% value best serves the purpose of establishing a tolerance level which simultaneously remains low and takes into account the necessary feasibility along the production chain. All these factors along the production chain are involved. The seeds thresholds are based on this 1% threshold. You have to count backwards in order to reach this 1% threshold.
A recital of the draft Commission directive on seeds provides that, should the food threshold change, the thresholds for seeds would need to be reconsidered accordingly.
On the coexistence issue, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies is carrying out a study entitled 'Scenarios for Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Crops in European Agriculture', commissioned by the Agriculture Directorate-General and coordinated by the Joint Research Centre. The main aim of the study is to assess the consequences arising from an increase in the cultivation of GM crops in the European Union in the context of coexistence. The study aimed to identify the source and estimated levels of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops at farm level, identify and assess changes in farming practices that could reduce adventitious presence below policy relevant thresholds and estimate the costs of relevant changes in farming practices, monitoring systems and potential insurance systems. The study confirms that cross-pollination and coexistence are issues that need to be considered in relation to agricultural production in general.
The results of the study need to be interpreted with caution. Only three crops were analysed: oilseed rape for seed production, maize for feed use and potatoes for human consumption. The results are derived from models and have not been validated by real field data. Therefore this study provided preliminary conclusions but the hypothetical results need to be confirmed and further research will be done.
The Commission is discussing this and coordinating with the various directorate-generals. This debate will certainly continue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples