Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.3.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, President Prodi, it is opportune for us to have a debate on food safety today, at a time when consumers have so many legitimate reasons for concern.
The Council and the Commission would like to get the measure of this concern, but at the moment, they do not seem to be particularly capable of offering solutions other than pernickety but overcautious regulations, which the sharpest and most unscrupulous people will continue to circumvent, to the detriment of food safety. Recent examples provide clear evidence of this.
So, I would like to take advantage of this general debate to stress to my fellow Members and to the other institutions the need to get back to a few common-sense principles which have been swept away by great theories which are based too much on economic concerns and not enough on human concerns.
Confidence is not achieved by decree, it must be earned. Of course, it may be something innate, especially in the case of country products which are subject to quality rules which are handed down for generations sometimes. So, let us take advantage of this in order to recognise and acknowledge as justifiably special the products which are deserving of confidence. At least, let us leave those who have forever known and practised their business with the complete confidence of the consumers to continue to do so, without raising the guillotine blade of unsuitable directives above their head, unsuitable because the author of the directives is unable to grasp the reality of the situation.
These country products, I say to you, should never be penalised under Community regulations, especially not when they are sold as local produce, for their quality is almost certainly the best guarantee of food safety. Let me take our local farmers’ markets as just one example. Of course, the fruit and vegetables that I find locally are not kept in isothermic containers, but at least we know where the products come from. If they are not fresh, they rot. So, in this case, sell-by labels are not needed.
On the other hand, when one does not have the privilege of living so close to the production sites, it is necessary to intervene in order to merit confidence, and never to betray it. But I worry when I see that the most basic safety measures are not taken. Whether it is a case of negligence or deliberate disregard, it is a serious error for which all the parties responsible must be accountable to the population.
So, in order to ensure food safety in the face of the unknown, I believe that, going beyond the practice of scientific committees which is far too widespread in the United States – and which I deplore, even here in the European Union – with decisions taken behind closed doors, we must, above all, guarantee the consumer complete and accurate information right from the original production sites. The transparency of these products, their traceability with details of their production and components, and comprehensive labelling will enable everyone to be kept informed. In addition, the use of non-natural components, such as GMOs or hormones must be clearly indicated, even if we want them to be banned.
How many more scandals must we expect before requiring, without risking incurring fines, recognition of the precautionary principle which, in the field of human health, is the only one capable of guaranteeing consumers the protection they are entitled to? This is the question you must answer today if this debate is not to have been in vain."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples