Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.2.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, here we are once again to speak about GMOs. Today, we are discussing the transboundary movement of these goods that are quite unlike any others. Will our next step be to pass legislation on cases involving the accidental release or the unintentional risks of GMOs? I am, of course, being ironic. But this surely marks just the beginning of long series of debates which, we must admit, sometimes take on a surreal quality.
We approve of the direction of the proposal for a regulation on the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol, but we would like to point out the paradoxical aspect of the process. This agreement is designed to provide the necessary legal framework for the transboundary movement of GMOs, but, at the same time, it acknowledges the contradictory notion of unintentional transboundary movements. It is evident that such provisions enable situations of scientific uncertainty to be dealt with, an approach that the countries of the South do not have the resources to undertake as impartially as ourselves. Moreover, during the vote we took in July to set a threshold of 0.5% or 1% for the adventitious contamination of GMOs, did we show impartiality? Furthermore, are we not going round in circles at the moment in the Agriculture Council, with regard to the proposal on genetically modified products intended for animal feed? Which procedure should be chosen to authorise these products? Must we lay down a permitted level for non-deliberate traces of GMOs that are unauthorised but are considered to be safe?
The Community has decided to play a leading role in the sale of biotechnology, but the approach is entirely paradoxical: even though neither the safety nor the danger of GMOs has been established, it is already being presumed that they will be extremely successful on the market. It is also true that the Commission has started to ask that the moratorium be lifted. The protocol does indeed leave the Member States a great deal of discretion, based on the precautionary principle. Yet, the Sjöstedt report reduces this room for manoeuvre. We must remain vigilant and remember that Community law uses the precautionary principle as it sees fit and that, when the States wish to take advantage of it, it is suddenly placed well out of reach. The current French embargo on British beef is a worrying illustration of this.
It is up to the Member States to ensure that scientific uncertainty is not transformed into a futile problem of social uncertainty in the face of the risks, or even to lay the foundations for an acceptable co-existence of GMO and non-GMO cultures. We are not closing the door on biotechnology or their transfer, but we wish to voice our reservations concerning a text which is merely a weak link of a shaky legislation thrown together in piecemeal fashion and which shows no hesitation in putting the cart before the horse. We are therefore choosing to abstain from the vote on this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples