Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.3.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dioxin and BSE are different types of problems which have both hit the world of agriculture hard as well as directly involving consumers too. These are two matters which have been explained to citizens as extraordinary events, but given the frequency of similar cases in the European Union, in our opinion, we can no longer use stopgap measures but need real solutions instead.
The latest striking evidence comes from dioxin. We have to think of stable and lasting solutions. The solutions target specific areas: 1) the consumers; 2) a new agri-environmental revolution; 3) precise political direction which the Community bodies must give. Overall, the broadly positive note is coming from the producers and consumers. On the one hand, farmers, who have for some time firmly followed the set of rigid production rules, have been guaranteeing and giving their full backing to – as history and current events show – the maturity of consumers. On the other hand, a possible way to resolve the problem is linked to consumers themselves, who by now well understand the European policy on brands and typical products which aims to strengthen local European products that are perfectly able to avoid being crushed by international competition that favours standardised food products instead. But in this context, we certainly cannot ask the producers to sacrifice themselves in the context of problems which all too often means they give way and are beaten. They lose out in the market through no fault of their own and can only look forward to a prolonged period of trying to win back the confidence that they had gained by hard work and production costs which here again, were all too often undervalued or at least, not given their full value.
The subject of production costs does not appear either in the regulations on rural development or in the regulations on consumer policy. There is not even the barest mention. Issues such as dioxin should teach us that, while it is true that farmers who have higher environmental standards should have higher incomes, in the case of food these requirements should also be applied, to an even greater degree. So, if it can be proved that the producers had nothing to do with cases like the dioxin scandal, then it is worth considering putting an appropriate price on quality.
The concept of quality has often been discussed and I too would like to refer to a precise but complex weave of characteristics: hygiene, traceability, safety, specific production – and environmental – characteristics, nutritional value etc. But quality – not the standardised quality which I mentioned in reference to the global market – must be recognised both in normal situations and even more so in conditions where producers face almost constant environment risks. Agenda 2000 and Regulation 1257 recognise and emphasise aspects which are connected with moves in this direction.
("@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples