Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-378"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.12.3-378"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we increasingly see that when biotechnology is referred to, genetic technology is actually what is meant, but this is not stated clearly. For more than 20 years, promises have been made which have then been broken in practice. Genetically modified foods and agricultural products are a flop. The consumers do not want them. In the field of medicine, it is imitation products, above all, which are manufactured in a slightly modified production process so that patents can be obtained and phenomenal prices achieved, with the health insurance funds being ripped off as a result.
I often wonder why we have been discussing these key technologies here for so many years and why these supposedly key technologies do not succeed in the marketplace. Where is the market, in reality? Biotech companies are complete flops on the stock exchange. We have no products which are successful and are accepted in the market. We have simply been 'talking up' this genetic technology for years.
Let me come to my real point. For us, it is completely unacceptable to remove the de facto moratorium, as very few of the Member States have actually implemented the directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. I also find what is happening here quite unacceptable. We have the Scheele report, and we have held a debate on the de facto moratorium. We also discussed the Fiori report in very wide and detailed terms, and it was made very clear that we do not want any patenting of human genes. The current report demands the very opposite. There is an obvious reluctance to accept the implementation of what has been called for, for a long time, in the other committees. I think this is farcical and quite unacceptable.
I think we must recognise that we need absolute transparency for consumers, as well as safe foods. Then no one can claim that we are prepared to put the interests of industry ahead of consumer protection simply to push these products on to the market.
With this in mind, I would like to state quite clearly, once again, that much of what is written here does not have our support. Nonetheless, I think it is quite good, and ask you to support our Amendments Nos 26 and 27, which make it clear that coexistence is very important in agriculture, and that the sustainable co-existence of conventional and organic farming should be ensured. The Commission calls for this as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples