Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-375"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Life sciences and biotechnology2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021120.12.3-375"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-20-Speech-3-3762
lpv:speaker	lp:Rolf Linkohr2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I fully endorse the previous speakers' comments, and I assume that there will be a majority in favour of the Damião report tomorrow. There are many reasons for this. The Commissioner is absolutely right to describe biotechnology as the undoubted key to the future. Some have grasped this already; others will take longer to do so, but it is undoubtedly the case. Mr Liese is absolutely right: biotechnology will also help us find solutions for sustainable development. I would like to add an explanation here, for biotechnology does not work with 'classical' thermodynamics, but with irreversible thermodynamics; in other words, it works with very small potential differences to produce a very substantial impact. Otherwise, we would not grow old, but would leave this mortal coil at the age of 15. In other words, biotechnology has many benefits, and this is widely recognised. Indeed, 'red' biotechnology is already recognised by large sections of the Green Party today. The problem is this: how do we deal with green biotechnology? This may also have to do with the fact that many people in Europe say that they do not need it; they say they have enough to eat, and the problem is distribution, not new products. There is a very different view in the developing countries, however. For example, if I have a product which can be produced using a minimum amount of water, or have a species of rice which contains specific vitamins, this is a matter of survival for many people in the developing countries. It does not matter to us, because we can buy other products with our large amounts of money. What does this mean in practice? It means that the development of biotechnology, including green biotechnology, in Europe could help many other people. Let me clear up one misunderstanding at this point, which has also played a role in our own group. It has been claimed that we aim to combat hunger in the world with biotechnology. This is not what is said here. What we say is that biotechnology alone cannot defeat hunger in the world, and that other measures, such as better distribution of the food available, are far more important. That is what it says here. Let me clear up this misunderstanding from the outset. However, biotechnology can make its contribution to reducing hunger in the world. Let me conclude with one further comment: our conflict here in this House is not that we will reject the Damião report tomorrow, but that we will vote differently during the legislative process. This is why I call on everyone to conduct a much more far-reaching dialogue here in this House, and with the Commission, on these issues. Otherwise we will continue to live with this dichotomy, which we are finding so difficult to cope with."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph