Pekka Pesonen sen toi tässä artikkelissa esille:
New impetus for sustainability tests Europe’s ‘soft power’Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of farmers association COPA-COGECA, told EURACTIV that this move would be “prohibitive in trading relations” and that he was afraid that there would be “no way to settle this”.
He added that the future of trading relations between the bloc and the UK is dependent on parallel access to technology and that he was concerned that the EU would be left behind.
Products placed on the EU market, whether imported or produced in the EU, have to adhere to the requirements of the EU legislation.
The burden of proof is on economic operators both within and outside the EU, including verification that unauthorised genetic modified organisms (GMOs) are not placed on the market and that traceability and labelling rules for authorised GMOs – as set by the EU legislation – are fulfilled.
This doesn’t make things easier, as genetic engineering is not detectable at the borders.
Häusling yrittää ylläpitää uskoa, että se jotenkin onnistuisi:
“It will certainly complicate matters if the UK decides to go for new genetically modified organisms” Martin Häusling, agriculture spokesman for the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, told EURACTIV, although he stressed that the EU will not be left behind.
“Consumer studies have demonstrated again and again that consumers do not want GM-food and feed, the UK will, therefore, lose a big market for its gene-manipulated products,” he said, stressing that European products have “a very good international reputation, partly because they are free of genetic engineering”.
Mutta tuo vastaus tarkoittaa loogisesti jyrkkää protektionismia: ei osteta ruokaa maista, jotka eivät jetsulleen noudata EU:n asiaa koskevaa lainsäädäntöä. Eli (käytännössä) ostettaisiin vain EU-maista. Tai EU:n edessä "polvillaan" olevista kehitysmaista. Minkä tilanteen Pesonen tuossa selvästi näki. Häuslingkin oletettavasti sen aavisti, mutta ei suostunut sitä myöntämään.
