natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Poleg direktive 2001/18/ES ureditev gensko spremenjenih pridelkov v EU obravnava še veliko drugih zakonodajnih dokumentov.
In addition to Directive 2001/18/EC, a range of other legislative documents deals with aspects of GM crop regulation in the EU.
Dajanje gensko spremenjenih organizmov, namenjenih za živila ali krmo, in živil ali krme, ki vsebujejo, so sestavljeni ali so proizvedeni iz gensko spremenjenih organizmov, v promet ureja uredba (ES) 1829/2003 o gensko spremenjenih živilih in krmi.
The placing on the market of GMOs intended for food or feed and of food or feed products containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs is governed by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed.
Če živilo vsebuje gensko spremenjene organizme ali je sestavljeno iz njih, ima vlagatelj izbiro: vloga kot celota je lahko v skladu le z uredbo (ES) 1829/2003, ob uporabi načela „ena vrata, en ključ“, da se pridobi dovoljenje za namerno sproščanje gensko spremenjenih organizmov v okolje – v skladu z merili iz direktive 2001/18/ES – in za uporabo teh gensko spremenjenih organizmov v živilih – v skladu z merili iz uredbe (ES) 1829/2003; ali pa je vloga – ali del vloge – v skladu z direktivo 2001/18/ES in uredbo (ES) 1829/2003.
Where a food product contains or consists of GMOs, the applicant has a choice: either the application as a whole is subject solely to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003, in application of the principle of "one door, one key", in order to obtain authorisation for the deliberate release of a GMO into the environment - in accordance with the criteria laid down by Directive 2001/18/EC - and for the use of this GMO in food products - in accordance with the criteria laid down by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003; or the application - or part of it - is subject both to Directive 2001/18/EC and to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003.
Poleg tega morajo gensko spremenjeni kultivarji opraviti različne postopke registracije in morajo biti navedeni v skupnem katalogu Skupnosti, preden jih je dovoljeno komercialno gojiti.
In addition, GM crop cultivars must pass a variety registration procedure and be listed in the Community Common Catalogue, before they are allowed to be grown commercially.
To se ne razlikuje od predpisov za nove kultivarje, ki nastanejo pri tradicionalnem gojenju.
This is no different from the regulation for any new cultivar resulting from traditional breeding.
V uredbi ES/1139/98 je navzočnost DNK ali beljakovin zaradi genske modifikacije merilo za označevanje živila ali njegovih sestavin, pridobljenih iz gensko spremenjene koruze in soje.
In Regulation EC/1139/98, the presence of DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification is used as a criterion to trigger labelling of food or food ingredients derived from GM maize and soybean.
Te določbe o označevanju so v uredbi ES/49/2000 spremenjene tako, da zagotavljajo mejno vrednost za označevanje 0,9 % za naključno, nenamerno ali tehnično neizogibno navzočnost gensko spremenjenega materiala v živilu (med gojenjem, žetvijo, skladiščenjem, prevozom ali predelavo).
These labelling provisions were amended by Regulation EC/49/2000 to provide a 0.9%-labelling threshold for “adventitious”, “accidental” or “technically unavoidable” presence of GM material in food (during cultivation, harvest, handling, transport or processing).
Poleg tega uredba ES/50/2000 določa posebne zahteve za označevanje živil in sestavin živil, ki vsebujejo dodatke, barvila in arome, dobljene iz gensko spremenjenega materiala.
In addition, Regulation EC/50/2000 defines specific labelling requirements for food and food ingredients containing additives, colourings and flavourings derived from GM material.
Evropska skupnost je predstavila zakonodajo o sledljivosti in označevanju gensko spremenjenih organizmov in proizvodov iz gensko spremenjenih organizmov ter gensko spremenjenih živil in krme.
The EC has presented legislation on traceability and labelling of GM organisms and products derived from GM organisms and for GM food and feed.
Ti zahtevajo sledljivost skozi celotno proizvodno verigo in na vseh stopnjah trženja.
These require traceability throughout the whole production chain at all stages of the market.
Potrošnikom bodo informacije zagotovljene z označevanjem vseh gensko spremenjenih živil in krme.
It will provide consumers with information by labelling all GM food and feed.
Označena morajo biti vsa živila, ki vsebujejo gensko spremenjene organizme ali so bila proizvedena iz gensko spremenjenih organizmov.
All foods in which GM organisms are contained, or have been produced from GM organisms, should be labelled.
V Združenih državah
In the United States
V ZDA se ureditev osredotoča predvsem na značilnosti proizvoda, in ne na način proizvodnje.
In the USA the regulation focuses primarily on the characteristics of the product, rather than the way in which the product is produced.
Ocena, ki temelji na proizvodu, je glavna razlika v primerjavi z ureditvijo v Evropski uniji, ki temelji na postopku.
This product-based assessment is a major difference with the philosophy of regulation in for example the European Union, which is process-based.
To razlikovanje v poudarku na postopku ali proizvodu je v zadnjih letih sprožilo precej polemik.
This process-product difference of philosophy has sparked considerable controversy over recent years.
V ZDA ureditev sproščanja v okolje temelji na pojmu poznavanja.
In the USA regulation of the environmental release is based on the concept of “familiarity”.
Ta pojem se lahko šteje za ekološko ustreznico pojma snovne enakovrednosti, čeprav se v nekaterih publikacijah ta dva pojma v zvezi s sproščanjem v okolje obravnavata ločeno.
This concept can be considered the ecological counterpart of the concept of “substantial equivalence”, although in some publications these two concepts are also considered separately for environmental release.
Poznavanje preučuje, ali je gensko spremenjena rastlina na področju varstva okolja primerljiva s tradicionalno gojeno ustreznico.
Familiarity considers whether the GM plant is comparable to its traditionally bred counterpart in environmental safety.
S takšno primerjavo se lahko ocenijo bistvena vprašanja v zvezi z gensko spremenjenim pridelkom brez neposrednih izkušenj.
Such comparison may assess the relevant issues in a GM crop without direct experience.
Poznavanje upošteva biologijo rastlinskih vrst, lastnosti, ki so bile vnesene, ter kmetijsko prakso in okolje, v katerem je potekala pridelava.
Familiarity considers the biology of the plant species, the trait introduced, and the agricultural practices and environment used for crop production.
Gojenje gensko spremenjenih pridelkov
The approval of GM crops is quite long-lasting and complex.
Ta pravila nimajo ustreznic v tradicionalnem gojenju pridelkov.
These rules have no counterparts if you grow conventionally bred crops.
Označevanje in sledljivost sta že bila obravnavana.
Labelling and traceability have already been dealt with previously.
Od objave priporočil Komisije in smernic za soobstoj gensko spremenjenega, konvencionalnega in ekološkega kmetijstva julija 2003 vse države članice razvijajo strategije o soobstoju v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti.
Since the publication of the Commission Recommendations and guidelines for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic farming in July 2003 all Member States are developing co-existence strategies under the subsidiarity principle.
V zvezi s soobstojem obstajajo velike zahteve po oblikovanju regij ali držav članic EU brez gensko spremenjenih organizmov.
Concerning co-existence there are great demands to create GM-free regions or member states in the EU.
Do zdaj je splošno stališče takšno, da če ni znanstvenega dokaza, te niso zakonite, ne v skladu z zakonodajo EU ne v skladu z mednarodnimi sporazumi.
Until now the general position has been that these are not legal, if there is no scientific evidence, not according to the EU law or under international agreements.
Na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti je nekaj primerov, ki čakajo na sodbo.
There are some cases in the Court of European Justice waiting for decision.
Morda je smiselno omeniti, da je več regij, ki so napovedale, da nameravajo postati regije brez gensko spremenjenih organizmov, hkrati uvažalo gensko spremenjeno krmo za uporabo v živinoreji.
It might be worth mentioning that at the same time when several regions have announced their intention to be a GM- free region, imported GM – feed is used in animal husbandry.
Obstaja tudi veliko različnih načinov soobstoja v posameznih državah članicah.
There is also a diverse variety of applications of the co-existence in different member states.
Ker enoten evropski model ne obstaja, bo verjetno prišlo do sporov in težav na enotnih trgih.
A single European model does not exist, which will probably cause disputes and difficulties in the single markets.
Komisija je vprašanje kot stransko zadevo prepustila državam članicam in si v zvezi s tem prizadeva za spodbujanje najboljše prakse.
The Commission has left the issue as a matter of subsidiary to the hands of member states and tries to promote best practices in this matter.
Rezultati niso preveč obetavni.
The results are not very promising.
Veliko vprašanje je odgovornost v zvezi s soobstojem.
A big issue is liability re co-existence.
Glavno vprašanje je, kdo je odgovoren, kdo lahko postavlja zahtevke, kaj je mogoče zahtevati in v katerih okoliščinah ter ali obstaja kompenzacijski sklad ali zavarovanje, ki zahtevke krije.
The main issue is who is liable, who can claim, what can be claimed and under what circumstances and whether there is a compensation fund or insurance to cover any claims.
Nekoč je v zvezi z odgovornostjo splošno zakonodajo uporabljala le Španija, zdaj pa se skoraj vse države članice zadeve lotevajo na podlagi načina gojenja, ki gensko spremenjene pridelke ločuje od konvencionalno gojenih.
Only Spain has previously applied general law to liability, but now nearly all member states are approaching the issue on the bases of the way of breeding separating GM crops from conventionally bred crops.
Pri konvencionalnem gojenju se za odgovornost in povračilo storjene škode uporablja splošna zakonodaja.
When conventionally bred crops are grown, general law is applied on liability and compensations, if damage has been causes.
Nekoliko nejasna ureditev glede odgovornosti lahko izzove pritožbe, katerih preiskava je draga, kar kmete odvrača od gojenja gensko spremenjenih pridelkov.
The somewhat unclear question of liability may provoke complaints that are expensive to investigate and in that way discourage some farmers from starting the cultivation of GM crops.
Gensko spremenjeni organizmi in mednarodni sporazumi
GMO and international agreements
Svetovna trgovinska organizacija je 29. septembra 2006 objavila sodbo sosveta za reševanje sporov o šestletnem moratoriju Evropske unije za uvoz gensko spremenjenih živil in krme.
In 29 September 2006 the WTO made public the dispute panel verdict on the European Union's six-year moratorium on imports of genetically modified food and crops.
V zvezi z domnevnim moratorijem za odobritev gensko spremenjenih organizmov je sosvet ugotovil, da je Evropska komisija dejanski moratorij uporabila v obdobju med junijem 1999 in avgustom 2003.
Regarding the alleged moratorium on the approval of GMOs, the Panel found that the EC had applied a de facto moratorium between June 1999 and August 2003.
Ta moratorij je bil kot pravna zadeva obravnavan kot neskladen z obveznostjo Evropske skupnosti iz priloge C(1)(a) k sporazumu SPS (sanitarni in fitosanitarni sporazum o mednarodnih standardih za usklajene standarde glede varnosti živil), ki od pogodbenic zahteva, da brez nepotrebnega odlašanja dokončajo preskuse in postopke odobritve.
As a legal matter, this moratorium was considered to be inconsistent with the EC's obligation under Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS (Sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on international standards for harmonised food safety standards), which requires parties to complete testing and approval procedures without undue delay.
Na pritožbo, da Evropska skupnost ni obravnavala nekaterih gensko spremenjenih organizmov za morebitno odobritev, je sosvet razsodil, da je ravnala neskladno z obveznostjo iz priloge C(1)(a), da mora brez nepotrebnega odlašanja opraviti in dokončati te postopke za številne gensko spremenjene organizme.
Regarding the complaint that the EC had failed to consider specific GMOs for approval, the Panel ruled that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligation under Annex C(1)(a) to undertake and complete such procedures without undue delay with respect to numerous GMOs.
Na podlagi pritožbe Združenih držav je sosvet ugotovil nepotrebno odlašanje v obravnavi Evropske skupnosti pri 21 gensko spremenjenih organizmih od 25 navedenih.
Under the U.S. complaint, the Panel found undue delay in the EC's consideration of 21 out of 25 specified GMOs.
Za Kanado je bila neskladna obravnava ugotovljena pri vseh štirih opredeljenih gensko spremenjenih organizmih.
For Canada, the inconsistent treatment was found for all four GMOs identified.
V zvezi s posameznimi prepovedmi evropskih držav za gensko spremenjene izdelke (vključno z zaščitnimi ukrepi) je sosvet obsodil prepoved šestih držav članic EU (Avstrija, Belgija, Francija, Nemčija, Italija in Luksemburg) za številne posamezne izdelke.
Regarding the individual European country bans on GMO products ( including Safeguard Measures), the Panel condemned the ban by six EU members (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg) on a number of individual products.
Sosvet je razsodil, da prepovedi ne temeljijo na oceni tveganja, kot zahteva člen 5(1) sporazuma SPS, zato niso v skladu z obveznostmi, ki jih državam članicam nalaga STO.
The Panel ruled that the bans were not based on risk assessments as required by Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, and were therefore inconsistent with the countries' WTO obligations.
Sklepi tega vidika odločitve so bili edini, pri katerih je sosvet ugotovil kršitve vsebinskih, ne zgolj postopkovnih določb sporazuma SPS.
The conclusions reached in this aspect of the decision were the only ones in which the Panel found breaches of substantive, rather than merely procedural, provisions of the SPS Agreement.
Pomembna je ugotovitev sosveta, da prepovedi niso bile v skladu s členom 5(7) sporazuma SPS, ki pogodbenicam dovoljuje sprejetje začasnih ukrepov (kot so prepovedi izdelkov), če ni dovolj znanstvenih dokazov za oceno tveganja izdelka.
Significantly, the Panel found that the bans were not consistent with Article 5.7 of the SPS, which permits parties to adopt provisional measures (such as product bans) where there is insufficient scientific evidence to assess the risk of the product.
Znanstveni odbor za rastline ES in pristojni nacionalni organi so izvedli ocene za vsak zadevni proizvod in vsak je bil odobren kot varen.
The EC Scientific Committee on Plants and competent national authorities had carried out assessments of each of the products in question, and each was approved as safe.
Te ocene so se štele za ustrezne ocene tveganja, kot je opredeljeno v sporazumu SPS.
These assessments were deemed to be proper risk assessments as defined in the SPS Agreement.
Za študije, na katere so se posamezne države zanašale pri prepovedih, je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso zadostne ocene tveganja, in ker so bile ustrezne ocene tveganja na voljo, se ni bilo mogoče zanašati na člen 5(7).
The studies relied upon by the individual countries for their bans were found not to constitute sufficient risk assessments and, because acceptable risk assessments were available, Article 5.7 could not be relied upon.
Na podlagi tega je sosvet ugotovil, da te prepovedi držav prav tako niso bile v skladu s členom 2(2) in členom 2(3) sporazuma SPS, ki pogodbenicam prepovedujeta ohranjanje omejevalnega ukrepa brez zadostnih znanstvenih dokazov (člen 2(2)) ter uporabo takšnih ukrepov tako, da prikrito omejujejo mednarodno trgovino (člen 2(3)).
This in turn led the Panel to conclude that these country bans were also inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS, which prohibit a party from maintaining a restrictive measure without sufficient scientific evidence to justify it (Article 2.2), and from applying such measures in a way to constitute a disguised restriction on international trade (Article 2.3).
Sosvet je priporočil, da posamezne države uskladijo zaščitne ukrepe in umaknejo prepovedi za navedene gensko spremenjene proizvode.
The Panel recommended that the individual countries bring their safeguard measures into compliance, and remove the bans on the specified GMO products.
Čeprav se sosvet STO ni izrekel o veljavnosti regulativnega sistema ES za gensko spremenjene organizme, je razsodil, da prepovedi za gensko spremenjene proizvode, ki ne temeljijo na ocenah tveganja, kot je opredeljeno v sporazumu SPS, niso v skladu s pravili STO.
While the WTO Panel did not pronounce on the validity of the EC's regulatory system for GMOs, it did rule that bans on GMO products that are not based on risk assessments, as defined in the SPS, are inconsistent with WTO rules.
Na drugi strani pa je potrdil pravico posameznih držav do prepovedi, če takšne ukrepe podpirajo ocene tveganja.
On the other hand, the Panel confirmed the right of individual countries to impose bans if risk assessments support such measures.
V zvezi z moratorijem za odobritev gensko spremenjenih proizvodov je sosvet ugotovil, da moratorij v obdobju 1999–2003 ni bil v skladu s sporazumom SPS, ker je povzročil neupravičene zamude pri postopkih odobritve.
Regarding the moratorium on approvals of GMO products, the Panel did find that the 1999-2003 moratorium was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, as it had the effect of unduly delaying the results of the approvals process.
Sosvet ni domneval, da bodo tudi prihodnji moratoriji nujno neskladni.
The Panel did not suggest that future moratoria would necessarily also be inconsistent.
Če bi se odkrili dodatni znanstveni dokazi, ki bi utemeljili omejitve, bi jih Evropska skupnost lahko uvedla, če bi se odločitve sprejele brez nepotrebnega odlašanja.
If additional scientific evidence were brought to light that would justify restrictions, the EC would be permitted to impose them, provided decisions were made without undue delay.
Pri svoji odločitvi je sosvet obravnaval obveznosti iz sporazuma SPS brez sklicevanja na previdnostni pristop in ponovno potrdil, da je treba omejevalne ukrepe, ki naj temeljijo na zdravstvenih ali okoljskih vprašanjih, utemeljiti znanstveno, in ne s skrbjo ali previdnostjo.
In its ruling, the Panel interpreted the obligations of the SPS agreement without reference to any precautionary approach and reaffirmed that restrictive measures said to be based on health or environmental concerns have to be justified by science, and not on concerns or desires to be cautious.
Diamanto Manolakou in Ilda Figueiredo
Diamanto Manolakou and Ilda Figueiredo
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL
on behalf of GUE/NGL
Ker je v nedavni raziskavi Evrobarometer 70 % prebivalstva EU zavrnilo uživanje gensko spremenjenih živil in ker so se številne regije in celotne države članice razglasile za območja brez gensko spremenjenih organizmov,
Whereas according to a recent Eurobarometer study 70% of the population in the EU rejects the consumption of GM food and that many regions and entire member states are declaring themselves "GM free",
ker različne raziskave pričajo, da soobstoj transgenih in konvencionalnih/ekoloških pridelkov ni mogoč, meni, da je gensko inženirstvo napačna in neobvladljiva tehnologija, nezdružljiva s trajnostnim kmetijstvom;
Whereas different studies, show that coexistence between transgenic and conventional/organic crops is impossible, considers that genetic engineering is a defective and uncontrollable technology incompatible with agricultural sustainability,
meni, da koncentracija pravic intelektualne lastnine (npr. patentirana semena) v nekaj multinacionalnih korporacijah povečuje njihovo moč in nadzor nad neodvisnostjo prehrane, varnostjo hrane in kmeti, kar ogroža raznolikost sort v Evropi, zmanjšuje biološko raznovrstnost ter povzroča koncentracijo in krepitev proizvodnje in odseljevanje s podeželja;
Considers that intellectual property rights (e.g. patented seeds) concentrate in a few multinational corporations' increases their power and control over food sovereignty, food safety and farmers, leading to impoverished varietal diversity in Europe, reduce biodiversity, as well the concentration and intensification of production and abandonment of rural areas.
poziva države članice, naj sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za prepoved uporabe gensko spremenjenih organizmov v kmetijstvu in prehrani ter spodbujajo razglasitve območij brez gensko spremenjenih organizmov, ki bodo ohranjala tradicionalne proizvode in konvencionalno/ekološko kmetovanje, saj bodo tako konvencionalnim pridelovalcem zagotovile pravico, da njihovi pridelki niso kontaminirani z gensko spremenjenimi organizmi, potrošnikom pa pravico do nakupa živil brez gensko spremenjenih organizmov.
Urges the Member States to take the necessary measures to ban the use of GMOs on agriculture/food and provide incentives for the declaration of GMO-free zones, preserving their traditional products and conventional/organic farming, to guarantee the right of all people producing conventional crops not to be contaminated by GMOs and to guarantee the right of all consumers to food products without GMOs.
o biotehnologiji: obeti in izzivi za kmetijstvo v Evropi
on Biotechnology: prospects and challenges for agriculture in Europe
1. meni, da so lahko gensko spremenjeni organizmi ključni element v evropskem multifunkcionalnem kmetijstvu;
1. considers that genetically modified organisms may represent a key element in the multi-functional European agriculture;
2. opozarja, da svetovni trg za gensko spremenjene organizme še naprej narašča, in meni, da bi moral postati pomemben sektor rasti v Evropi;
2. notes that the global market for genetically modified organisms continues to grow and considers that this ought to be an important growth sector for Europe;
3. meni, da je mednarodna konkurenčnost evropskega kmetijstva na dolgi rok v veliki meri odvisna od razvoja biotehnološka industrija in vpliva njenih dosežkov na gospodarstvo;
3. considers that, in the long run, the international competitiveness of European agriculture depends to a significant extent on the development of the biotechnology industry and the spillover of its achievement into the economy;
4. meni, da lahko gensko spremenjeni organizmi pomagajo pri reševanju nekaterih velikih izzivov in težav našega časa, kot je na primer oskrba s hrano in energijo; trgovina s takimi izdelki igra torej pomembno vlogo pri zagotavljanju, da imajo od njihovih zmogljivosti koristi države in ljudje po vsem svetu; to nenazadnje velja tudi za revne države, za katere so lahko gensko spremenjene kulturne rastline pomembno orodje razvoja;
4. believes that genetically modified organisms can help resolve several of the major challenges and problems of our times, e.g. food and energy supplies; the trade in such products is therefore an important instrument for ensuring that countries and people throughout the world can benefit from their potential; this applies not least to poor countries for which genetically modified crops can be an important instrument of development;
5. obžaluje dejstvo, da evropskemu biotehnološkemu sektorju zaradi restriktivne politike in ureditvenega pristopa, ki ju zagovarjata Komisija in nekatere države članice, grozi zaostanek;
5. regrets that as a consequence of the restrictive policy and regulatory approach applied by the Commission and some Member States, the European biotechnology sector is at risk of lagging behind;
6. poudarja, da Komisija in države članice pri uvoženih biotehnoloških proizvodih ne smejo sprejeti ali uporabljati milejših pravil kot pri podobnih proizvodih iz EU;
6. emphasises that the Commission and the Member States should not adopt or apply less strict rules concerning imported biotechnology products than those applied to similar goods produced in the EU;