Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.3.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, President Prodi, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to return, as Mrs Roth-Behrendt did just now, to the dioxin crisis and Belgium, of course, without necessarily discussing it as a purely Belgian problem.
The recent Standing Veterinary Committee of the Union took the decision, a fortnight ago, to lift the embargo on Belgian beef exports, thus recognising the serious nature of the tests and the strictness of the standards which are now imposed by the new Belgian Government. The meat produced today in Belgium is henceforth certified as being of excellent quality, and may now return to its former position on the market. In fact, it seems to me that the European Union would be well advised to follow this example in promoting systematic testing for PCB and dioxin in all States, as this is not the case at the moment. It would be remiss of me not to mention the creation in Belgium of an agency for food safety, responsible for monitoring the entire food chain from beginning to end.
Victims of a crisis which they did not cause and whose consequences they have no control of, Belgian farmers, moreover, are waiting for concrete evidence of European solidarity, so that this dioxin crisis may be recognised as epizootic, in the same way as the mad cow crisis in Great Britain. This, in my opinion, is the price of Community solidarity.
We must now, four months after the start of the crisis, rise above the emotional atmosphere – you mentioned it too, Mr Prodi – which has often dominated the debate until now. It is not, as I said, an acute problem limited to Belgium, but is, indeed, a case with a European dimension. What do we want to eat? What level of quality do we want for our consumers? How can we guarantee this quality? It is our way of life, as you said, Mr President.
To do this, then, the Union must invest more in the safety of the food chain, at every stage of the process, and decide, for example – as we have discussed – whether or not it is useful to create this agency, this notorious independent food agency, supposedly inspired by an American model or some other such thing. I note your various proposals, Mr Prodi, particularly citizens’ access to the early warning system; and Commissioner Byrne’s proposal on the White Paper.
Having said that, the questions remain: when will this actually happen? What is the timetable for these proposals? I would also like to ask you a question too: to what extent does the Union, in fact, use, if at all, its own resources, such as, for example, the research centre into health and food safety located at Ispra?
As the elected representatives of the citizens primarily affected by all these stakes, which are crucial, this Parliament must play an essential role in this area. The vote on the next budget, including a series of amendments designed to draw the initial lessons from this dioxin crisis, will indicate whether we have decided to lead the way or not."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples