For or against genetically modified organisms? Around 30 young people in Sofia, Bulgaria debate the question with MEP Mariya Nedelcheva.

Let's Talk: GMOs

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/13783888/J004-0008-EN.srt

I am Maria Nedelcheva, MEP,   of the ENP Group, GERB.

Our debate topic is 'for or against   genetically modified organisms'.

I am a member of the Committee   on Agriculture and Rural Development,

the Committee on Petitions,   Justice and Inner Affairs,

and the Committee on Women’s Rights   and Gender Equality.

In the agriculture committee, the GMO   debate is attracting a lot of attention.

In the 70s, the creation of GMOs   was received with enthusiasm.

We've split you into two groups:   you are in favour of GMOs,

There's 6.8 billion people in the world,   with food for only two thirds of us.

I don’t think 2 billion people   are volunteering to die.

That’s why GMOs are necessary,   for places like Africa and Asia.

Our first argument in favour:   GMOs are needed to feed the world.

but in a country like Bulgaria,   where there's little starvation,

why impose the use of   genetically modified food

and increase the risk of healthy people   getting ill or developing allergies?

Bulgarians are more interested   in quantity than quality.

It is very selfish to condemn GMOs when   you yourself have food in abundance,

because there are many countries   where people are starving.

That's exactly our position:   GMOs are needed there, but not here.

when they will be more nourishing,   cheaper and better than normal food.

GMOs are the future.   They will take over.

When that's the case   and when we really allow them in Bulgaria,

Nobody knows their impact   on individual organisms.

15 years ago a study involving 200   million people was conducted in the US.

Its conclusion was that GMOs   have zero health impact.

I have weak immunity,   so I am careful about what I eat.

Many foods are harmful for me and   other people who also suffer from this.

When people eat GMOs,   they develop certain diseases,

Better to die from cancer at 60   than to die of hunger today.

And your proposal is   to feed these people GMOs?

There is no proof   that GMOs are harmful.

On the contrary, they will only   get better in the future.

Many studies conclude   that GMOs have a negative impact on IQ.

Pregnant women who consume GMOs,   give birth to babies with a lower IQ.

GMOs are linked with diseases like   cancer, which proves that they're harmful.

but evolution always involves a risk   which we have to take, to find out if...

If there is a chance   that genetically modified organisms

can contribute positively   to our lives,

then we should take the risk   and find out.

Studies show that the milk and meat   production of cattle increases by 30%,

but that almost all animals develop   stomach problems and other diseases.

You mention   complications with animals.

There are always complications   with new inventions.

This may improve with time   if we give GMOs a chance.

When animal testing shows improvement,   then we can start testing on people.

Labels don't indicate   if a product contains GMOs.

So they force GMOs upon us   without giving us a choice.

We must buy a certain product   because we don’t have an alternative.

Almost all products   contain GMOs nowadays.

We've brought up an interesting   topic: the right to choose.

The label must always list the ingredients,   maybe it's not always the case in Bulgaria,

but in many countries the manufacturer   must mention it, or else he gets penalised.

The label should say what's inside   so that we can keep the right to choose.

When we read it, we should be able   to say, 'I accept to eat this food'.

Or we should be able to say   'we refuse to buy this product'.

We need clear indication if there is a GMO   in the product, and how much of it.

The European Commission is working   on this. Let's hear the supporters.

Labelling is not   the genetic engineers' problem.

It's the problem of   the manufacturers of the product.

I agree. Clear rules and laws   must be put into place.

Do both groups already see an opportunity   to formulate a common position?

GMOs can be modified   to be more resistant.

This reduces the need for pesticides,   which are more harmful than GMOs.

When we talk now   about foodstuffs with pesticides…

Since they have been   developed to be more resistant…

The problem is not that they are GMOs,   but that they are full of pesticides.

Many of the foodstuffs we regard as   GMOs, are perhaps chemical products.

There are cases in which GMOs   lead to improved crops and plants,

without harming   the environment or our health.

Are you sensitive to arguments like this?

Yes, all pros and cons   must be put on the table,

including their impact on weaker and   stronger organisms, people and animals.

Only then can we start the debate   about allowing a GMO into the country.

First, its impact   must be 100% transparent.

Now we are against GMOs   because of a lack of data.

Our position may change   once we have more information.

We can get all that information   from other countries.

But shouldn't we allow   GMOs into the country,