Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the two regulations we are debating today add to a series of Community legislative acts on genetically modified organisms relating not only to the restricted use, but also to the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, new foodstuffs and new ingredients and compulsory information on soya seed and genetically modified corn labels. These regulations add a panoply of legislative arrangements, with rules on the marketing and sales of food and feed products which consist of, contain or are produced from genetically modified organisms. In addition, consumers are given the necessary information, so that they are informed when they want to buy a product. Thus, when a product consists of, contains or is produced from genetically modified organisms, the words that this product consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs must be written on the packaging.
I think that we should proceed to vote for a text which is as close as possible to the Council's position.
The Council's common position reinforces the proposal for a regulation for which I am acting as rapporteur in connection with the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and products and the traceability of foods and feed, the European Parliament's amendment to Directive 2001/18 and the Commission proposal, particularly those provisions designed to ensure the regulation is implemented more efficiently.
Thus the Council attempts, mainly on the basis of traceability, to ensure that the market will function smoothly and to achieve a high level of consumer protection in cases where it is not possible to use analytical methods to distinguish between conventional products and products produced from GMOs, in the following ways: introduction of systems to recognise the identity of GMOs by assigning a unique identifier, a requirement for undertakings to transmit information on identity of the product, a requirement for undertakings to retain additional information for at least five years. Consequently, I think that the fast adoption of this regulation without proceeding to the conciliation procedure with the Council is what we are asking for.
If the Council and the Commission accept just certain amendments which, I would say, make traceability and labelling requirements for genetically modified organisms slightly stricter, it will be possible to introduce rules at European level.
Similarly, as far as the question of mixed crops is concerned, I would like to emphasise that we are talking here of foods and feed, which is why we call on the European Commission to develop guidelines for the coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops.
Finally, I think the added amendment concerning the creation of a register for the publication of technical guidelines on sampling and testing for the methods is useful, because this both reinforces transparency and helps to achieve a coordinated approach and efficient implementation of the regulation.
Fast approval of the regulation in question and of the regulation on genetically modified food and feed will ensure consumers are informed about foods and feed produced from genetically modified organisms, so that they can make an informed choice of products. This will result in the lifting of the
moratorium on the approval of new GMOs and prevent a trade war with the USA, Canada, Argentina, Egypt and other countries.
I am basically of the opinion that Europe is lagging behind in these new technologies and in biotechnology, as described in the Council's conclusions and the road map and the significance of this development, with these two reports today and the vote tomorrow, will be considerable for Europe, because we are noticeably lagging behind our competitors as regards this promising technology of the twenty-first century, with adverse consequences at all levels: economic, social and even environmental. I therefore propose that we proceed to vote for these amendments, which do not change the substance of the legislative text and, consequently, that we avoid conciliation and that we have these two regulations in force as quickly as possible.
The problem of being unable to keep up with the speed of developments in biotechnology was what basically resulted in reservations and I think that it is time the European Union moved in a positive way towards this technology. That is the intention of these two regulations, so as to give consumers the chance to be informed and the European Union the chance to make progress at last in this technology compared with its competitors."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples