Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.11.2-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – May I first express my thanks for all the work that has taken place in the different committees in relation to this proposal for a regulation on GM food and feed and also to thank the rapporteurs for their hard work – also the Commission staff in both DGs, who have worked hard over the last couple of years to bring forward this proposal.
I have yet to meet a business operator who would admit that he or she does not know the origin of the ingredients he or she is using. There is a good reason for this. Admitting that you do not know whether your input is GM or not is also admitting, by the same token, that you do not know whether or not you are perhaps using a non-authorised GM. It is probably for this very reason that those who oppose the mandatory labelling of products not containing modified DNA or protein also propose to exempt these products from authorisation.
This, I am afraid, would be totally unacceptable to the Commission. It would turn the clock back more than five years, before the adoption of the Novel Foods Regulation, at the very time that international consensus is emerging, particularly in Codex Alimentarius, that all foods produced from GMOs should be subject to a pre-marketing approval process. The message to our consumers would be unacceptable. Currently, the message is: “Sorry, we cannot tell you whether this table oil is GM or not”. If these amendments were adopted, we would have to add: “...and, sorry again, if it is GM, we cannot tell you whether the GM from which it is originating was authorised or not”.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of GMO-free labelling. You have already understood that the Commission cannot accept GMO-free or non-GM as an alternative to the mandatory labelling of GM-derivatives. However, I do not believe that the amendment that has been tabled to the proposed regulation in relation to a voluntary GM regime is appropriate. But let us look at this again at second reading.
I also take up the point that the public will be misled by the proposal that we are putting forward in suggesting that there should be a GMO-free regime. There is an overwhelming risk that the public would be misled by a GMO-free labelling regime because of the fact that such guarantees cannot be given to the public and to try to do so by a mandatory labelling regime, supported by the law of the Community, would, in my view, run the risk of bringing the law into disrepute. Therefore, having put this objective into the White Paper on food safety two years ago, we thought long and hard about this. I have to say to you, Mrs Flemming, that having considered this, we came to the conclusion that this was not the way forward, for the reasons I have identified. That is why we have come forward with this particular proposal.
Concerning environmental risk assessment, a series of amendments challenge the suggestion that the European Food Safety Authority should carry out the environmental risk assessment as part of the overall assessment of a GM food or feed.
In fact, these amendments would effectively deny the proposed regulation the status of sectoral legislation within the meaning of Directive 2001/18. Mrs Doyle asked earlier why we bring forward two pieces of legislation and add to the confusion. The piece of legislation that Commissioner Wallström is in charge of is a horizontal piece of legislation as is Directive 2001/18. In Directive 2001/18 it was envisaged that there would be sectoral legislation, brought forward in due course. That is the piece of legislation that I am promoting – the food and feed legislation. It was a requirement that this House voted on in 2001/18, calling for sectoral legislation. That is what the Commission is doing. That has been the objective from the beginning. That is what Parliament has already voted for.
The Commission considers that these requirements are fully provided for by the proposed GM food and feed regulation.
Equally, it would also deny the application of the “one door, one key” principle. This would result in the need for companies to file more than one application for the same GMO even though the applications would contain much of the same information. In my view, the "one door, one key" proposal is fundamental and a huge advantage not only to the applicants but also to consumers. The Commission cannot therefore accept the amendments requiring the environmental risk assessment for GMOs covered by the food and feed proposal to be carried out only under Directive 2001/18.
A number of amendments have been put forward with the intention of strengthening the information requirements of the proposal. The Commission would be prepared to accept some of the amendments to increase further the level of public availability of information, but I do not consider it appropriate or reasonable to try to amend general comitology rules through this instrument.
It is also important that we do not forget the intellectual property rights of companies. In this regard I would draw attention to Article 31 of the proposal which, in my opinion, provides the right balance between protecting such legitimate rights and the interests of transparency.
The issues raised under this banner are complex and sensitive, and often give rise to strong emotional reactions and divided opinions. The vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy frequently resulted in amendments being rejected or adopted by a very low margin. This highlights the difficulty of the subject – but also, in my opinion, serves to show that the Commission proposal strikes a good, sensible and balanced compromise between the differing views.
A number of amendments suggest that very small trace amounts of unauthorised GMOs and GM material should not be accepted in food or feed.
It would simply not be feasible or practicable if the proposals did not provide for any tolerance – under certain conditions – for small traces of food and feed of GMOs or GM material. Indeed, even when an operator makes an effort to avoid using GMOs or GM material, traces may be technically unavoidable during cultivation, harvest, transport and processing.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Whether we like it or not, this has become a reality. We have to live in the real world. This is not just a problem that is exclusive to GMOs. In the production of food, feed and seed, it is practically impossible to achieve end products that are 100% pure and totally free from foreign substances.
In the EU, the Scientific Committees have already assessed a number of GMOs and concluded that they do not pose a risk to the environment or to human health. However, some of these GMOs have been awaiting final approval for some time.
I therefore consider it sensible that the proposal allows for these GMOs and GM material, which have been found safe in terms of a complete positive risk assessment from the EU Scientific Committee, to be present in food or feed up to a maximum of 1%. This is provided that the GM presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable. It was suggested earlier by Mr Lannoye that we were allowing for the presence of up to 1% of unauthorised GM material. That is not correct. We must make a clear distinction between unauthorised GM material for which an application has never been made and GM material for which an application has been made, a scientific assessment has been made by the Scientific Committee, a risk assessment has been positive in favour of that application, but no authorisation has yet been granted because of the existence of the moratorium. They are two different situations. It is the latter type, for which we are allowing the presence of up to 1%, not the former. It is an important distinction that I would like Parliament to take note of.
Other amendments suggest that a maximum labelling threshold for adventitious presence of authorised GM material should be established at one half of one percent (0.5%). I believe that we should follow the principle established in Directive 2001/18, which provides for thresholds to be fixed in comitology procedure in order to take into account technological and scientific progress. I believe that is the right way to go about this because the response can be made more quickly in the comitology or secondary legislation procedure, rather than putting this into a piece of legislation as has been suggested in the amendment. If we ever need to amend, we will have to do so by the normal procedures that we are used to, which may very well take more than a year or two to do.
I repeat that the Commission considers that the two proposals together strike a good and balanced compromise between the differing views. Furthermore, I firmly believe that they also provide the right approach to foster public confidence and social acceptance of the application of biotechnology in agri-food production. I hope that Parliament understands the reasoning behind the decision to reject or to accept in part only some of the amendments put forward. A full list of the Commission's position on each of the amendments is being provided to Parliament. I do not propose to read them out one by one, but I trust that this will be included in the Minutes of this sitting.
I do not intend to address each and every amendment, but instead would like to focus on four major issues. The first is the scope of the proposal. Amendments propose to extend the scope of the proposal to processing aids and animal products from animals fed on GM feed and also to restrict the scope of the proposal to products derived from GMOs which contain detectable modified DNA or protein.
In drawing up the proposal, the Commission carefully considered which products should be included within its scope. We decided only to include products that are produced from a GMO. Processing aids are not covered by the Novel Food Regulation, as these are not considered to be food ingredients. That is also the reason why, in respect of Community law, processing aids do not have to be labelled on the final product. For consistency reasons the Commission believes it would be inappropriate to require authorisation and labelling of GM processing aids, without having the same requirements for conventional processing aids.
For the first time the Commission proposal specifically covers GM feed. However, to extend its scope to products such as milk, eggs and meat from animals fed on GM feed would radically depart from existing food legislation concerning animal products. The Commission does not believe that including products from animals fed on GM feed in the scope of the regulation is either feasible or practicable. The Commission therefore firmly rejects amendments to that effect.
Allow me now to address the amendments, tabled last week, that aim to restrict the scope of the proposal, both in respect of authorisation and in respect of labelling.
The Commission proposes to expand the current labelling requirements, and to require the mandatory labelling of food, food ingredients and feed produced from a GMO, even when modified DNA or protein is not present – that is, not detectable in the food, feed, or in the ingredient. The classic example is table oil directly derived from GM maize, GM soya beans, or GM rapeseed. Through the refinement process, all transgenic material has been removed. The question therefore arises – should it be labelled as GM or not? Safety is not the issue here. This is dealt with in the authorisation process. Labelling serves the purpose of informing consumers and users and allowing them to exercise choice.
What is abundantly clear to me is that the GM origin of products is something that really matters to a large number of consumers. We also know that many of the Member States want the mandatory labelling of GM derivatives. A number of them have clearly indicated that they would not support the authorisation of new GMOs if labelling and traceability of GM derivatives was not required. Those who argue against mandatory labelling of all GM derivatives, irrespective of the presence of modified DNA or protein, take the view that control of this obligation is unworkable and that it would lead to massive fraud.
Let me state very clearly that I cannot accept this argument. I cannot accept that legal requirements are not enforceable if compliance cannot be checked through analytical methods. The reality is that a great number of regulatory requirements and legal rights, from mandatory labelling of the geographic origin of products to intellectual property rights, are enforced without any recourse to physical checks. None of the practical difficulties predicted in connection with GM labelling has proven insurmountable in these contexts. Indeed, the very requirement that we are discussing today is already in effect in many parts of the Community, albeit imposed by companies within the food chain rather than through Community legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples