Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-22-Speech-4-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040422.5.4-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against the report not because we disagree with it, but because everything it rightly points out is cancelled out by the first amendment, which promotes the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops, allowing beekeepers to manufacture honey which contains GMOs. We consider that this is extremely dangerous and destructive to beekeeping, precisely because honey is primarily a quality agricultural product. The existence of genetically modified crops, in conjunction with a 0.9% limit on GMOs in honey, presupposes that bees can choose between genetically modified and non-genetically modified plants.
We condemn the 'zeal' of the European Parliament in speeding up the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic crops – despite the warning bell being sounded by numerous valid scientific studies – and would point out that no legislative measure can prevent or combat the immense potential dangers. The argument that the cultivation and movement of GMOs is now a foregone conclusion and all that remains is its 'satisfactory' legal regulation, is hypocritical, given that what is presented as a
would not exist if the ΕU had not bowed to pressure from the USA.
We are categorically against the cultivation and movement of GMOs and we shall continue to fight for a total ban on them, because we do not consider anything to be a foregone conclusion. The European Parliament should take the same stand; however, it appears to have been converted by interests and pressure a long time ago."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples