CEPS position - 15 Feb 2002 -- CEPS

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:55:19 02/14/02 Thu
Author: Campbell Evans
Subject: CEPS position - 15 Feb 2002

I believe that at some stage we need to rework the position paper. As currently written it provides a useful summary of the background regulation and also attempts to set out a position.

More immediately, for the meeting on 15 February, I feel CEPS must ensure that CIAA is making in a forceful way the objections that the industry has to the current GM proposals. As Rosemary Garth says, this is bad law, and we should not be shy of saying so. Among other things the Regulation is unenforceable, is ambiguous, takes no account of products with long maturation times, and offers no comment on the international trade implications. It does nothing to improve public health.

I firmly believe that CEPS must follow this matter very closely. It is not enough to say 'we don't use GM raw materials' or 'there is no DNA in spirits'. These statements will not save us from the traceability and labelling requirements, if we ignore the proposed Regulation because of public relations concerns. Indeed to ingore the potential impact for this reason may lead to the bigger PR problem of the industry having to liable all its products as 'may be derived from GM' because we cannot meet the tight traceability requirements laid down.

Campbell Evans

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]