Mr President, the debate on GMOs has often generated more confusion than clarity. This is obviously what is happening here this evening. We must refrain from taking any spectacular initiatives to attract the media’s attention and instead encourage a pragmatic and scientific approach to the subject in order to set aside any emotional pressures or considerations. Too much of the unfounded criticism of GMOs disregards this scientific approach. Let us keep in mind that genetic engineering has enabled us to make significant advances and progress in the field of pharmaceuticals, for example. We should not allow research to be hindered in such a way. On the other hand, we must ensure that food and feed does not present any risk to human health, animal welfare or the environment and that the use of genetically modified organisms does not present these types of risks. We must protect consumers against any possible danger, speak openly of the advantages and drawbacks of GMOs by explaining to consumers the risks to which we would be exposed by turning our back on this technology. However, safety remains the most important ingredient in our food. Therefore, GM experimentation must be carried out in accordance with the principle of ‘step-by-step’ scientific validation, on the basis of homogeneous and centralised criteria, and provide the greatest possible transparency in terms of both the conditions governing this experimentation and the results obtained. Having 15 different authorisation systems merely adds to the confusion, in an area where we actually need harmonisation. I would therefore like to express some concerns arising from certain proposals put forward in these reports. I reiterate that our credibility depends on the texts that we pass and the realistic measures resulting from them. We know that food contamination or the adventitious presence of GM material is possible, but we must still be able to detect this accurately. The scientific community recommends a threshold of 1% and casts grave doubts upon the ability to bring this threshold down to 0.5% and this does indeed seem unrealistic and impossible at this point in time. Since the specified threshold for determining the presence of GMOs must be realistic, this question naturally brings us to the issue of labelling. To say to consumers that we can guarantee food is GM-free would amount to deception. Introducing this policy naturally requires strengthening of scientific validation, controls and applicable penalties. I hope that the European Union will inform consumers as fully as possible in order to give them genuine freedom of choice, and that it communicates to them credible information on GMOs, particularly by means of labelling that is clear and easy to read, unambiguous but not excessively so, in other words based on a system which requires complete and reliable information on the presence of GMOs and their derivatives, based on the detectability and on the analysis of genetically modified DNA and protein. To now attempt to extend this requirement to the labelling of food obtained from animals fed with GMOs poses a problem and may confuse information. In order to be effective, the two reports before us must be homogeneous. Yet, I am concerned about the lack of cohesion which might result from the vote on these two texts. What will we do if both reports deviate from a common guideline? How will we explain this deviation to the public? How will we apply these measures which, ultimately, will be impossible to apply?

Political group: PPE-DE