Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, firstly I should like to thank you all for a very useful and comprehensive debate. It confirms at the same time how difficult it is to reach some sort of consensus on this complex issue. This adds to the merit of the two rapporteurs, Mrs Scheele and Mr Trakatellis, who have managed to approach very distinct positions and to work out some viable compromise solutions.
In this debate I can trace a wish to be in a different debate about saying 'yes' or 'no' to GMOs. This is not the situation. We are not discussing whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to GMOs. Maybe this would have been easier, but we have passed that stage. We already import into the European Union 35 million tonnes of soya every year. This is a fact. It is not fair to say that we have not tried to act according to the situation.
We have revised Directive 2001/18/EC about placing live GMOs on the market. We have proposed traceability labelling. We have looked at food and feed proposals. We have added this. We have written a new text into the environmental liability proposal. We are always discussing ways to complement the existing legislation in order to meet the concerns of citizens in the European Union.
What we have proposed reflects these concerns and, at the same time, the potential of this new technology. This is exactly what it addresses. We see that there is probably a lot of potential in using GM techniques, but we also see that there are risks. That is why we now have much stricter legislation in place. That is why we are tracing and labelling these products. That is why we have added a text in the environmental liability proposal. This is exactly what we have taken into consideration. We are trying to do our part and to take our responsibility. That is the only way to address such a complex and difficult issue.
Is it enough to restart authorisations? This debate also reminds me of a boy I know who, when he was five or six years old, was served small green peas as part of his dinner by his grandmother. He assured his grandmother that ‘yes, I love green peas, but I don't eat them’. The same will apply if we now put in place completely revised legislation but are not willing to apply it. What kind of signal are we sending to the rest of the world? A signal that our legislation, which ensures this balance of looking at both the potential benefits and the risks, does not work – we are not ready to apply it. That is the main point for me. We should be able to start to implement the legislation that we have now worked on for such a long time, trying to ensure an informed choice for the European consumers and farmers.
We must demonstrate to the rest of the world, including the US, that it works. This is how we do it. We make a risk assessment, we trace it, we label it and we make sure that we have this correct balance.
That is why, as my colleague, Mr Byrne, has said, the Commission will take its responsibility. As you know, the process also leaves it very much up to Member States to demonstrate that they can work with this issue, but if they are not willing to do it the Commission will certainly take responsibility. Once again my thanks go to the rapporteurs and to all in the House for a very exciting debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples