Strasbourg, 19/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - With the adoption by 254 to 105 and 49 abstentions of the report by British Conservative John Purvis, the European Parliament declares its determination to support the development of biotechnology in the EU, in the interest of citizens (cleaner environment and better health). It did not, however, agree with its rapporteur who also felt that biotechnology can contribute to the production of better foodstuffs (see EUROPE of 10 March, p.3). The plenary remains in favour of keeping the moratorium on putting genetically modified organisms into circulation. It above all rejected (185 for, 243 against and 7 abstentions) a paragraph that would have amounted to deploring the governmental measures tending to block or delay GMO authorisation. The EP insists on the very useful role played by the European ethics groups for science and new technologies (EPP/ED amendment). It also stresses that genetic information of a personal kind come under the fundamental law on privacy and must be protected against access and use by third persons (insurance companies, employers, public authorities, commercial entities, etc.: amendment Greens/EFA).
During the debate, Mr Purvis insisted on how important this sector is and hoped that the EU would do everything possible to catch up the United States and to "reassure citizens" whose fears, he believes, are often unwarranted. German Christian Democrat Peter Liese gave his group's support to the report. He felt that the risks are often under-estimated in medicine and over-estimated for plants, for which the EU has good rules. He hoped that common rules would also be adopted for medicine. British Labour member Gordon Adam also gave his group's support to the report and insisted on the potential of the biotechnology industry that will in future make it possible to "live better" and to fight a large number of illnesses. Ely Plooij-van Gorsel, Dutch Liberal, was of the same opinion. She, too, insisted on the promising aspects of these new technologies. "Not only do we need an e-Europe, but we also need a b-Europe", she exclaimed. Irish Green member Nuhala Ahern, on the other hand, explained that the group of the Greens and the European Free Alliance could not accept the unreserved support given by Mr Purvis to biotechnology. She insisted on the risks and the uncertainties that remain for the environment and for certain health applications. Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL, Finland) is all for the development of biotechnology but hopes that rules will be established allowing for a correct assessment to be made of their impact on human health and the environment. Bastiaan Belder (EDD, NL) considered the rapporteur "over optimistic". Insisting on the ethical problems raised by the patenting of living organisms in particular, he said that economic reasons should never be considered more important than ethical values. Swedish Liberal Marit Paulsen urged for transparent information and an open debate. "It would be naïve to think that biotechnology will resolve all the problems facing our planet", said French Socialist Harlem Désir, who was above all in favour of keeping the moratorium on the authorisation of GMOs.
Erikki Liikanen said that the Commission agrees not only with the need to make a more detailed analysis of the impact that biotechnologies will have but also with the support that should be given to the development of research and competitiveness in this sector. He recalled that the Commission will insist, during the Stockholm Summit, on the need to promote biotechnology and that, at the end of the spring, it will present a study on the situation in this sector within the EU. He added that it must also adopt, before the end of the year, a strategic communication and an action plan on biotechnology. On this occasion, it will take into account opinions expressed by the Parliament, he added.