Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, we all know that the GMO issue is a political one as well as a technical one. As policy-makers and legislators we have a clear responsibility to provide a high level of safety for European citizens and to enable them to exercise choice.
In addition, the first part of Amendment No 15 seeks to reinstate national provisions for traceability under Directive 2001/18/EC. To accept this would only create legal uncertainty, given that the proposal on the table will provide Community rules for traceability as well as labelling.
Amendment No 7 refers to the 'may contain' clause for food and feed products in the original Commission proposal. This was also the subject of a very difficult debate and to reopen it now would have serious consequences for the operability of our system and the forthcoming WTO Panel.
Amendment No 6, which refers to the definition of the placing on the market, was also subject to considerable debate in the Council, following adoption of the same amendment at first reading. The wording of this amendment was included in the common position via reference to the full definition of placing on the market from Directive 2001/18/EC. The Commission cannot support further amendment of this definition particularly as the tabled amendment would contradict definitions already laid down in Community legislation.
Amendment Nos 5 and 29 refer to the precautionary principle. I would point out that the Council addressed this amendment in the common position as supported by the Commission. The precautionary principle relates to risk assessment which is why it appears in Directive 2001/18/EC and the proposal on GM food and feed. Traceability is a facilitating measure, but it is not based on risk assessment. To go further than the current wording of the recital is not appropriate and the Commission cannot support these amendments.
Amendment Nos 11 and 12 refer to traceability and labelling requirements for processed products and acceptance would again impinge on the agreement reached under the proposal on GM food and feed which covers such products.
The second parts of Amendment Nos 8 and 13 seek to extend the time-period for the holding of traceability information from five years to ten years. Even if traceability were still possible after ten years this information would be of no practical value.
Amendment No 20 addresses the reporting obligations of the Commission, which are duplicated in Amendment No 3. Reporting obligations are already reflected in Article 12 of the common position and further requirements are not necessary.
In terms of coexistence, Amendment No 16 in a similar manner to an amendment on the proposal GM food and feed, seeks to introduce text to address this issue into a new Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC. However, the text of Amendment No 16 is not in line with that proposed for this new Article under the political agreement for the proposal on GM food and feed and therefore we cannot accept it.
Finally, Amendment No 21 refers to the date of application of the regulation. It should be noted that the applicability of the regulation was referred to in the Council and Commission statement, accompanying the common position. In this regard the Commission points out that Member States have already endorsed a Community format for attribution of unique codes to GMOs based on the OECD format. Of course the Commission will make sure that this system is accounted for in terms of new authorisations as required under Directive 2001/18/EC.
To conclude, it has been a very intensive debate on the whole issue of how the European Union should handle GMOs. With some difficulty we have put together a system which will offer security and choice to our citizens. I hope that the vote tomorrow will give us a workable compromise and I thank you all for the discussions we have had and for finding a good solution.
The European Union has been building a system that allows us to base decisions on whether or not to authorise the use and release of GM products on the best available scientific and technical advice. Once that base is secured it is then a matter of ensuring that the consumer is correctly informed so that he or she is able to choose whether or not to buy GM products.
The two proposals now being considered in second reading are important parts of the overall design of our system for dealing responsibly with GM products. They have been fully debated inside all the political groups and different committees.
Turning to the proposal for which I am responsible, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and the presidency for their efforts to finalise the proposal on labelling and traceability. I hope that Parliament and the Council will be able to agree on the amendments to be adopted later in plenary, so that we can reach agreement on both food and feed and traceability in labelling in this part-session.
This proposal will provide an important complement to the existing regulatory framework. You will all be aware of the difficult negotiations leading up to the adoption of the common position. The gap between the different positions has narrowed, as many of the amendments adopted at first reading were introduced in the common position.
As was to be expected, the issue of coexistence has surfaced as the key issue at second reading of both proposals. The new Article to be introduced into the directive under the political agreement for the proposal on food and feed will provide for a legal base under which to work. This, linked with the forthcoming initiative from the Commission on guidelines for coexistence will provide Member States with the possibility of implementing appropriate measures to deal with coexistence.
In terms of the key issues, the Commission can support the amendments that provide clarification of the common position. These include Amendment Nos 1, 3, 4, 18, 24, 26 and 27, as well as the second part of Amendment No 17, and the first parts of Amendment Nos 8 and 13.
Conversely, Amendment Nos 22, 23, 25, and 28 seek to introduce texts on coexistence that are identical to that which would be laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC and the regulation on GM food and feed. The Commission considers this to be duplication but we could accept it.
The remaining amendments, the majority of which are retabled from first reading, cannot be supported. Amendment Nos 2, 9, 10, 14 and 15 refer to exemptions via thresholds. Acceptance of these amendments would undermine the political agreement reached on the proposal on GM food and feed. As I have previously said, consistency and coherence between the two proposals must be ensured."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples