After the decision of the European Parliament to let the 28 individually
decide to cultivate GMOs or not, MEP deplores a measure that "unravels
cohesion between Member State". States free to decide. The European
Parliament has given Tuesday by 480 votes against 159, the
authorization to the 28 Member States to choose whether or not to
cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs), once the green light
given by the Commission for each type of GMOs. Countries accepting that a
company cultivates GMOs in their territory will, however, meet certain
conditions, including the implementation of measures against pollution
of non-GMO crops. The first cultured should occur in 2016, the time that
the new legislation is in place. Green Party European Parliament
Deputy Jose Bove expect a protest in Grandschamps-des-Fontaines near
land That Will Become The New airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, western
France, November 16, 2012. The new airport, Some 30km (19 miles) from
Nantes, is scheduled to Be Constructed for 2017. REUTERS / Stephane Mahe
(FRANCE - Tags: ENVIRONMENT CIVIL UNREST POLITICS HEADSHOT) - last
RTR3AHEYCette was supported by both the right and the Liberals and
Socialists. The Greens voted against. Interview with José Bové MEP
Europe Ecology-The Greens (EE-LV) and member of the Committee on
Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) the European Parliament. What accuse the Greens to the new European legislation?
should have been strengthened legislation against GMOs. Instead, the
new rules deteriorate the situation and détricotent cohesion between
Member States, which are alone deal with companies who want to introduce
GMOs on their territory. This is a Trojan horse for free trade
agreements being negotiated. Because giving the last word to the States
weakens the European authorities, instead of strengthening them. In
addition, the method of evaluation of the consequences of GMOs has not
been reviewed. Since 2008, we claim it to be overhaul as it lacks
transparency. Documentation about genetically modified organisms is thus
transmitted to the European authorities and the Member States by the
same companies that produce these GMOs. So there is conflict of
interest. We also hope that all impacts are taken into account, as well
as socio-economic health. This week, we will ask the Commission for a
meeting to try to strengthen the evaluation. What could the Member States alone to face the multinationals?
Isolated, countries find themselves weakened because they have less
weight than the European authorities. If a Member State chooses to
prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on its territory, the company which
made the request may attack through the WTO (World Trade Organisation).
And it will argument that this country is obstacle to trade his goods.
In addition, countries that choose to stop producing GMOs can be
attacked by companies for reconsideration of their investments.
Moreover, competitive distortions could arise. Indeed, if an EU member
country uses a GMO on its territory, while another refuses, the two
states will no longer be on an equal foot. Not to mention the
cross-border pollution, if a country chooses to ban GMOs on its
territory, while its neighbor not, the first will be threatened by
pollen from GMO products on the lands of the second Yet. new legislation does not power states to prevent contamination of non-GM crops?
This is the blank. The coexistence of cultures is illusory. The
legislation takes into account only one variable: the distance between
them. Pollen can extend for miles, making it impossible to protect the
fields opposite the pollution emitted by GMOs. In short, this new
European legislation based on a short-termist view, because in the long
term, GM will nibble the Union, country by country. Julien PRUVOST
Des militants anti-OGM le 2 mai 2014, dans un champ près de Roquettes. (Photo Pascal Pavani. AFP)
