Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-23-Speech-3-383"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-04-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Zero tolerance regime for unauthorised GMOs and the economic consequences thereof (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080423.25.3-383"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-04-23-Speech-3-3842
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Mulder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; Parliament's Bureau (2007-01-16--2009-07-13)3 member; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2007-01-16--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Quaestors (2007-01-16--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should first like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and this plenary sitting for following up my initiative to debate this topic here this evening. One remarkable thing is that all over the world the cultivation of genetically modified crops is on the increase, but only we in Europe are terribly scared about it. The big question is why. The Commissioner says quite categorically that that is how the legislation is and so we have to comply with it. However, if changed circumstances make it necessary to amend the legislation, the Commission will have to do that. I think it is time to do it now. I was still asking questions about it a little while ago, but one genetically modified crop is not like another. There is a big difference between transgenesis and cisgenesis. One is species-specific, the other is not. Both are covered by the same legislation and the Commission must address itself to the matter to amend the legislation from that point of view. In my view, the crux of this whole story is zero tolerance. There are few situations in the world where you can require absolutely zero tolerance. There must always be a possibility of leaving a certain margin of difference. If you drive too fast for a distance of 50 kilometres, in most countries you have a margin of tolerance of about three kilometres before you are fined. Why is that not possible for imported goods? Why is a tolerance of, for instance, 0.8% or 0.9% not possible? Can the Commission give me a clear answer on that? I also welcome the fact that talks are under way with EFSA to shorten procedures without endangering quality, but has EFSA indicated yet whether or not that is possible? Talks alone are not enough, because time is pressing. There is also another point. Perhaps the Commission can explain to me how I, as a politician, can tell the general public that we can consume a whole lot of products here that we are not allowed to produce. We can import without restriction from all over the world any products from animals that are fed products which are banned here. What is the point of that? What is the explanation? Perhaps the Commissioner can suggest an idea to me for the forthcoming election campaign. Finally I should like to ask what are the consequences of the attitude of the Commission as regards the WTO? Can we simply do this?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph