Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-29-Speech-5-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991029.3.5-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, nobody can dispute the fact that Great Britain is still the continuing source of an epidemic which has affected half of its beef herds. There will be more than 3,000 cases of mad cow disease in 1999, in spite of the measures that have been taken since the ban was declared in 1996. The persistence of this endemic raises a frightening question; whether there may be other means by which this disease is transmitted, apart from the ones we have seen so far, such as feeding animals with animal meal and transmission through the mother.
In the light of these fundamental questions, as in the case of GMOs, we must be as prudent as possible, and all the more so because we will soon have an effective scientific instrument – the BSE tests – which will enable us to judge the state of health of all herds. The scientific validation of these tests is imminent. So why should there be such a rush to force the lifting of the ban now, even though Great Britain has no beef that it can export and when these tests are about to be validated?
Nevertheless, the French government’s attitude is not entirely consistent. If, instead of abstaining at the Council, it had, like Germany, voted in favour of maintaining the ban in the absence of elements which are essential for traceability, the ban would now be in force, consumers would be safe, the tests would be able to clarify things for us, the great British people would have been spared the blast of nationalism from across the channel and our Conservative friends would not have had to disown the principle of sovereignty for which they feel legitimate affection.
Having said that, issues that are just as vital for human health as those surrounding BSE would not stand up to most close examinations. The whole issue of protecting our people’s health and food is at stake. Indeed, the crisis is fundamentally a result of the obstacles created by both the European Union and the WTO to the implementation of the precautionary principle, and we will only be able to implement the precautionary principle appropriately by regaining genuine subsidiarity, not by subverting it in the name of federalist and free trade ideologies.
As far as food safety is concerned, given the current state of the European Union, we know very well that we can only expect it to provide a minimal level of protection, and to provide reduced value rather than added value. Subsidiarity thus makes it a matter of urgency that we recognise that States have the right to derogate from any harmonisation measure as long as they intend to adopt regulations providing greater protection for public health, and for the environment too. It is essential to add this as an emergency measure to the next IGC agenda, and this is, consequently, a point that must absolutely be renegotiated in the framework of the WTO, otherwise any attempt to apply subsidiarity at the European level would be susceptible to being bypassed.
In Marrakech, the Commission forced us to surrender our freedom in the area of health protection. The burden of scientific proof, which weighs heavily enough on those wishing to protect the health of their population, puts a brake on applying the precautionary principle or actually prevents it. It is crucial that these measures be revised if the current crisis is to lead us in these two directions, which are closely linked. We cannot demand that the precautionary principle be taken into account at the WTO in Seattle when at the moment, we are denying this to Member States. If we do this, Mr President, Commissioner, some good will have come out of this crisis."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples