Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-027"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public health and food safety2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991005.3.2-027"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Dirk Sterckx2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; ELDR (1999-09-13--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vlaamse liberalen en democraten (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, it is therefore clear, as you rightly said, that the entire process must be followed from the beginning right through to the consumer. In so doing, we have known for the past few years now that cattle fodder is one of the weak links in the food chain. I can remember that when the dioxin crisis began in Belgium, in my country that is, people said: how could we have detected that? Nobody had ever imagined that something like that would end up in cattle fodder. I now ask myself if there are still a number of things which we do not suspect of being able to enter the chain but which do, in fact, end up there. And so I think it is time to set to work on a positive list and, as Mr Florenz said, to ensure that we know what is allowed to be in the food chain and what is not. That is my first important point. A second important point is this: after months of hard work, my country’s faith has been restored in the European Commission and so, we are starting work using a system that is stringent and that is very expensive, it is true, but that is worth the effort nonetheless; it is one of stringent supervision and stringent standards. The tests on cattle have shown that there are a number of cases which do not derive from cattle fodder but do derive from contamination, dioxin contamination, caused by industry and by incinerators. We are aware of this in Belgium because we have carried out a great many tests, but what is the situation in the rest of the European Union? Is it not the case that efforts should be made to monitor this in other EU countries as well, and a number of other things too? Was there not a report on incinerators by the European Parliament and should that not be in the hands of someone in the Council? Could we, at long last, be allowed to know what stage we have reached? I had wanted to ask the Council something else and I think it is a pity that they are not present. We note that the Commission wants to be strict, not just towards Belgium but also towards the others. I hear that there are a number of countries that are nowhere near as enthusiastic and that are putting the brakes on. I would certainly like to know who these countries are and why they are taking this line. Am I right in thinking that certain Member States no longer want to go as far as the Commission’s proposals? I feel that as the European Parliament we must support the Commission when it takes rigorous, rapid and explicit action. Its White Paper certainly must not be used as a delaying tactic."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph