Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.12.3-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental issue we are addressing here is whether coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops is truly possible. Unless we find a practical and precise answer to this question, there can be no basis for the much-vaunted freedom of choice. Farmers who produce conventional and organic crops will have no choice and consumers will have no choice if genetically modified crops affect conventional and organic crops. We must not allow our hand to be forced by a powerful lobby consisting of an increasingly limited group of huge multinationals that market genetically modified crops and which seek to control agriculture and food production against the wishes of European farmers and consumers who, in countless opinion polls, have already expressed their reservations and even fear about genetically modified organisms.
I therefore welcome this own-initiative report by Parliament, which is all the more important because the Commission itself was delaying this debate. The report also opens the way for the
moratorium that has existed since 1998 to be lifted. As a matter of fact, this is a demand that I myself made in a joint-initiative resolution with members of my group in March 2003. Everyone is aware of the inherent risks of contamination from the release of GMOs into the environment. Scientific studies on cross-pollination and the dissemination of GMOs are still too limited for us to have a precise and reliable evaluation of all the consequences. Throughout this debate, however, bearing in mind the opinions presented at the parliamentary hearing, the conclusion we are bound to reach is that contamination cannot really be avoided in the large-scale presence of genetically modified crops, with consequences ranging from the loss of biodiversity to economic damage to conventional and organic farming.
Consequently, despite the risk of dissemination varying according to the type of genetically modified crop, their management cannot be efficiently and viably contained. A farm that opts for a genetically modified crop cannot then revert to conventional or organic farming. Our experiences with animal disease, specifically BSE and Foot-and-Mouth disease should serve as warnings of the problems of reliability and cost that will face the monitoring systems that are put in place. Consequently, as the rapporteur states in his report – on which I congratulate him – the most effective and economic way of ensuring coexistence is the renunciation, whether voluntary or restricted at regional level, of GMO cultivation.
Furthermore, the Community provisions established cannot jeopardise every Member State’s right to ban genetically modified crops throughout their territory or in geographically limited areas. What is obvious in this entire process is that, if coexistence is not possible, the moratorium should remain in place in order to observe the precautionary principle. We should consequently support at least item 9 of this report and I personally hope that Parliament will tomorrow adopt the report in its entirety."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples