Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-101-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110705.6.2-101-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me thank Parliament once again for its active and efficient handling of this proposal.
Let me start by reacting to some of the comments that were made during this debate. First of all, I do not share Mr Häusling’s assessment on the competence of EFSA to decide on GMOs. I believe that we have the competence, but naturally the processes need to be strengthened and are always susceptible to being strengthened. This is, as you all know, what we are doing now. On the other hand, we have to understand that EFSA’s decisions are not instructions or edicts requiring Member States to cultivate GMOs. They are statements on safety from the health and environmental perspective. Therefore we need other processes when it comes to cultivation.
On these processes again, I would like to comment on what Ms Grossetête said, with which I totally disagree. Ms Grossetête said that the Commission, through this proposal, is avoiding its responsibility and passing it on to Member States. I would suggest that it is completely the opposite. Cultivation comes at the tail end of a process which starts from the authorisation phase. At this authorisation phase, where Member States have total competence to decide on whether to authorise GMOs or not, Member States are on record that they have never decided one way or the other, thus passing the responsibility from them to the Commission.
At the same time we have countries who are opposing this proposal who are today prohibiting cultivation in their own territories through safeguard clauses which are illegal under the European directive. It needs to be said that, every time the Commission tries to take action against these safeguard clauses, it is always blocked by the Council. I think it is time that we stopped this situation.
I would also like to look at some positive elements of these proposals. I believe that having this provision implemented would put more pressure on the biotech industry to persuade consumers and their representatives about the benefits of their products, and to ensure that risks are reduced and benefits are increased. The objective of responsible innovation which we are pushing is not an economic benefit but it is a citizens’ benefit.
May I remind you that the proposal addresses the long-standing demands of some Member States for more subsidiarity on GMO cultivation. The swift work of Parliament gave us additional impetus to work hard with the Hungarian Presidency towards a compromise proposal which could have been the starting point for discussions and a possible agreement. Unfortunately, despite the substantive progress achieved under the Hungarian Presidency, it was not possible to open discussions with Parliament before today’s vote. Whilst many Member States continue to emphasise the importance of the Commission’s proposals, others keep asking for extra time and further clarifications. We must double our efforts to find the necessary common ground, thus accommodating those who want to cultivate GMOs and those who may wish to restrict or prohibit cultivation.
I remain committed to working with Parliament and the Council on the clarification and possible improvement of the proposal, to reach an agreement as soon as possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples