Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we must be fully aware of the extent of the problems raised by GMOs, and above all we must not reduce them to the single issue of how the costly research carried out by certain multinational seed companies may be made to yield a quick profit.
First of all, the GMO issue raises a major sovereignty problem: the sovereignty of the public over the commercial exploitation of scientific discoveries, the sovereignty of farmers over what they sow, the sovereignty of consumers over what they eat, and the sovereignty of States over what they control.
Secondly, GMOs pose two major risks. The first of these concerns human health: there is a risk that the transgene introduced into the plant may code for the synthesis of a toxic protein. The mad cow disease prion has demonstrated that certain undesirable proteins may have very long-term toxic effects. The second risk concerns the environment: this is the risk that undesirable genes will be spread to the wild flora and to the rhizosphere. On this point, one can only deplore the extremely unwise conduct of the Americans, who have spread GMOs over millions of hectares without having taken the precaution of accurately evaluating this risk.
Thirdly, we must ask ourselves who actually benefits from GMOs. For the consumer, the benefit is non-existent at the present time, as it is for the environment, because we are still waiting for the reduction in the consumption of pesticides that GMOs were supposed to make possible. For farmers, the benefits are slight: a few savings in relation to seed preparation, treatments and weed control, but at the cost of increased dependence on seed companies and the manufacturers of crop protection products. For developing countries the benefits are only theoretical, because the companies in question have been working only for markets that are solvent, which means that we cannot accept the American criticism of European countries on this point. It is therefore the seed companies who are the ones receiving the real benefits, and that means the American multinationals, who are most advanced in this field.
What should we do? Certainly we should continue with the research. We should explore both the potential and the risks of transgenesis, even though this technology is extremely costly and appears better suited to crops grown on a very large scale with very little diversity, which are not a feature of European farming, or at least of European farming before the Fischler plan.
We should continue the research in a way that protects our complete freedom, and without allowing anything to be imposed upon us; we should act with extreme caution, not giving way to pressure, and should take a more rigorous approach to consumer information. These, Madam President, seem to me to be the broad lines that we should be following on this essential issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples