Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-23-Speech-3-385"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080423.25.3-385"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to start by strongly challenging the assumption that seems to lie behind this oral question. Trying to link the rise in animal feed prices in Europe and the corresponding crisis in the livestock industry to the EU’s GM laws in general, and its zero-tolerance policy in particular, is completely false and disingenuous.
It is certainly true that times are hard for livestock farmers, but I make the case that this has nothing to do with Europe’s GM policies and everything to do with a combination of factors, including poor weather conditions leading to reduced harvests, deregulation of markets, increased demand by countries like China, the rapid and misguided increase in biofuel production and growing financial speculation.
Much is also being made by the GM industry of DG Agriculture’s report on the potential impact of the EU’s GM regime on the availability and price of animal feed. The worst-case scenario in the report rests on the assumption that Brazil will rapidly commercialise a GM soya bean variety not approved in the EU. But absolutely no evidence is presented that Brazil is even considering new GM soya beans.
The report finds that US approvals will be unaffected by EU policy and that Brazil and Argentina will, in fact, be much more cautious about approving new GM crops that could otherwise damage their exports to the EU. For example, Argentina has introduced a certification scheme for maize exports to the EU, precisely to avoid unapproved traits.
Moreover, there is no evidence either of major distortion of competition caused by imports of meat from animals that may have been fed with GMOs not authorised in the EU.
So, frankly, all of these questions are ill-informed and tendentious. But I do have some questions of my own with regard to any proposed threshold for EU non-approved GMOs. First, how can the Commission be sure that EU non-approved GMOs are safe?
Second, in the case of damage, which institution or company will have to pay? The EU, which allows such contamination? The company, which has developed the GMO but has so far no valid market approval? Or the company responsible for the import?
Finally, should such a threshold also apply to genetically engineered plants that produce substances like pharmaceuticals? What assessment has been carried out on the contamination of daily food with active pharmaceutical substances?
I look forward to hearing full answers to these crucial questions at the end of this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples