Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.7.2-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, today we are debating a legislative proposal for a resolution which concerns (a) traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms, (b) traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms, and (c) amendment of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.
The main aim is to harmonise rules within the European Union in a bid to ensure the internal market operates efficiently and consumers are better informed. Unfortunately, however, neither the Commission proposal nor the amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment offer any guarantee that these objectives will be achieved. On the contrary, they open the way for fraud and deception, for the misleading of consumers, for the distorting of prices and competition and for less favourable treatment of EU producers and companies.
This proposal is directly related to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, the protocol does not contain any provision on the traceability of products made from genetically modified organisms. This fact does not ensure legal certainty and is a shortcoming, possibly even an obstacle to adopting rules within the Community, not only for domestic Community products but, principally, for imported products. This is because there is no legal obligation to provide all the information at each stage of the production process, thereby opening the way to all sorts of fraud and deception on the part of third country producers and suppliers. As a result, competition will be distorted because, while European Union producers will be obliged to comply with the regulation, third-country producers and suppliers will be able to maintain that their products are made from natural substances, without anyone being able to check and verify if that is really the case. Furthermore, if the European Union unilaterally applies traceability and labelling requirements to imported products and carries out checks without an adequate scientific basis, it may create a trade dispute with third countries which results in the matter being referred to the World Trade Organisation.
At the same time, instead of promoting biotechnology as a technology of the future which is recognised worldwide and promises a great deal for human society in the twenty-first century, the proposal deals this technology a mortal blow. What I wonder is: who thinks up such proposals? Everything to do with food has been based in the past on scientific analysis; this applies to testing adulterated food, to BSE, to dioxins and so on. So if it is to be absolutely efficient, this regulation needs to be combined with scientific methods for identifying the differences between products made from genetically modified organisms and conventional products. In addition, methods currently available enable even traces of genetically modified DNA or genetically modified protein to be traced. As your rapporteur, I differentiate between three categories on the basis of these analytical techniques: the first category of products are products containing modified DNA or protein, for which we can use traceability and labelling. The second category contains products made from genetically modified organisms but which do not contain DNA or protein or differ in any other way from conventional products. However, if we treat equal products unequally as regards labelling, then we make them unequal and they fare differently on the market and, of course, they distort prices and mislead consumers, who will probably end up paying more. This sort of approach therefore leads to distortion on the market, confuses consumers and, basically results in fraud because labelling cannot be verified and the truth of what is stated on the label cannot be checked scientifically. So I think it is perfectly clear that the Commission proposal is so contradictory, especially now that it has been amended by the Committee on the Environment that, if we accept the principles contained in it, we shall abolish any scientific basis or logic and end up labelling food on the basis of political convictions or ideological perceptions. Animals, for example, that eat GMO products for 10 days or 20 days will have their meat, milk, butter and cheese labelled; that is the logical consequence of the Commission proposal.
Consequently, I believe that the European Commission has submitted this proposal to us under pressure to lift the moratorium. The proposal is totally impracticable. It offers no legal certainty because no authority with jurisdiction, such as the courts, will accept it. Consequently, my proposal to combine traceability and labelling with the principle of determining and tracing genetically modified DNA and protein is the only proposal which can be applied in practice to products made from genetically modified organisms and ensure, with the help of scientific analysis, that the regulation is applied."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples