Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.7.2-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The answer to Mr Purvis’s question is no. We do not agree with these statements and I have furthermore discussed the matter with the President, in a frank and direct way, as recently as last week at the EU-US Summit, which was held in Washington. Mr Purvis, we do not agree with this position and we sought to ensure that the President of the United States was informed of the matter, as they say in English, ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’.
One of the reasons we do not agree is that we consider this to be an argument of dubious merit, used in an entirely justified cause and which is intended to promote the interests of GMO agri-food exports by the United States. There are other ways of proceeding, however, such as reducing food aid in kind, as we have done, in order to provide food aid in cash. In Africa in particular, we have funded food aid at regional level. Consequently, every country has choices to make, for or against GMOs, and we must not impose these choices on them. We simply hope that these countries retain their freedom to decide and their sovereignty. In order to ensure this, we simply have to reduce food aid in kind and increase financial aid for food, in line, furthermore, with the regulations of the various United Nations food programmes."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples