Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-498"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.37.2-498"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, novel food regulations should provide for the diversification of food products on the European market, while ensuring that these new products are safe for the consumer.
Therefore, the novel food regulation is not an appropriate framework for such a complex issue. If, in the future, food products derived from cloned animals are to be introduced on the European market, it should be done by means of a specific regulation submitted for public consultation and then democratically adopted.
I believe Parliament needs to take a strong stand and, by means of a majority vote, put pressure on the Commission to find solutions that echo the will of the citizens.
We will also support labelling of nano-ingredients. People have the right to know what they eat and make their choices accordingly. If some people are concerned about nanotechnology, then they should be able to make a different choice. However, we believe that labelling of foods produced from animals fed with genetically modified feedingstuffs is simply not realistic and feasible. I personally am strongly against GMOs, but I cannot imagine how we could trace efficiently which animals were fed with GMOs and which were not.
However, under the current regulation very few novel foods are approved on the EU market due to highly complex application and assessment procedures. If we had applied the current procedures to the authorisation of the potato or the kiwi fruit we might not have them on our table today. The revision of the current regulation should aim to set up a more efficient and practicable system for the authorisation of novel foods.
I understand some of my colleagues’ concerns about allowing on the market new products that might present a danger or mislead the consumer. However, we should not fall into the trap of safety hysteria and kill innovation, and we should not discriminate against novel food, placing it a less favourable position than products already on the market that do not necessarily have a nutritional advantage for consumers; nevertheless, consumers have freedom of choice.
My group is generally satisfied with the outcome of the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. However, there are certain issues that go far beyond the scope of this regulation, and consequently we will not be able to support it. For example, we cannot demand that a novel food has no negative impact on the environment. Whether we like it or not, all human activities have an impact on the environment, and such a provision is disproportionate in this context. Instead, my group believes we need to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and applying the precautionary principle concerning food safety, consumer and environmental protection and animal welfare.
Our approach was to ease the long and bureaucratic procedures for putting novel foods on the market and protecting the industry’s investments by means of reinforced data protection.
To that end, for the plenary vote we have retabled a set of amendments to facilitate the procedure for products that are similar to foods or ingredients already existing on the market and where the authorisation procedure has already started under the old Regulation. Applications pending under the old Regulation should be completed according to the rules in force at the time of the submission of the dossier. Reintroducing the application under the revised Regulation would only mean further delays and costs for the industry.
At the same time, we also tried to promote the interests of consumers by reinforcing implementing measures on, for example, marketing and monitoring, supporting the exclusion of cloned animals from the food chain, and specific labelling provisions.
On the issue of cloning, I strongly support the exclusion of foods from cloned animals and their descendants from the scope of this Regulation, and call on the Commission to ban cloned animals in the food chain. In September 2008 the European Parliament adopted by a large majority a resolution asking for a ban on cloned animals from the food supply.
We must be consistent in the political message we send to the Commission and to citizens. There are still fundamental questions to be addressed regarding the ethical implications of cloning animals for food supply, and even the implication of animal cloning on human health and animal welfare."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples