Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-29-Speech-5-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991029.3.5-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"C
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you above all for the manner in which today’s debate has been conducted. I believe that it was an exemplary debate which will contribute considerably towards allowing us to bring the discussion back to the realms of objectivity. Essentially, I can draw the following conclusions from this debate: Firstly, I am deeply convinced of the fact that we have to base our decisions, and also the decisions of the Commission, on the judgement of independent, and this is an important point, independent scientists, as well as on the state of the art.
Nor should we overlook the fact that the cause of the entire BSE problem lay in the fact that this principle was disregarded, that decisions were taken for market reasons, for economic reasons, without appropriate consideration being given to the health issue. We should therefore take care to avoid making a similar mistake again by heading in one direction or the other. For this reason it would also be wrong for us to draw our own conclusions without being aware of the conclusions of the scientists who are at this moment discussing the issue in committee. We must await the verdict from the Scientific Committee which is made up exclusively of independent scientists.
What we must then do, and I take this very seriously, is act immediately, so that we are doing more than just waiting and I am quite prepared to also communicate the message, which I am announcing here, to President Prodi and to my colleague David Byrne. I am quite prepared to ask you if this debate could then be continued on Wednesday, incorporating the conclusions drawn by the Commission.
This French report essentially discusses four elements. One of these elements is application of the tests that are now available. I am not of the opinion that these tests should be used solely for placebo purposes, but in this regard as well we should base our decision, as indeed we have done, on scientific fact. I am convinced that these tests can render a valuable service in supervising the events on a Europe-wide basis and they should also be applied to this end. As to the extent that they may be used over and above this, we should certainly be careful on one point, and that is in believing that we have a one hundred percent guarantee, and that we can give a one hundred percent guarantee that we can distinguish between meat which may pose a risk and that which does not. However good the tests are, they are not one hundred percent reliable. In this regard as well, we cannot dream of a zero risk.
Should the scientists put forward new recommendations in this matter, we should obviously be more than ready to examine these recommendations accordingly as well. As far as supervision is concerned, I agree with those here who have demanded that the level of supervision be comparable throughout Europe and that it is not sufficient to have a working system of supervision in Great Britain alone. We are not, however, carrying out inspections only in Great Britain but in other countries as well so as to guarantee this at a European level too.
With regard to the calls for a Food Agency, I would like to point out that we would be well advised to make headway on this question. In this regard, we must establish the preconditions laid down by my colleague, Mr Byrne, and in this connection I would like again to emphasise the following: I do not consider that we should go in the direction of a Food Agency along the lines of the FDA, but we should adopt the
which we already have for pharmaceutical products as a model, in other words, a European model for a Food Agency.
As far as the question of postponing the labelling is concerned, I would again like to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission’s interest is not in delaying this, but rather in ensuring that we do not get to the end of the year only to find ourselves without either a voluntary or a mandatory labelling system in place. Do not overlook one point, namely that it is of no use to make a labelling system obligatory if the data required for this is not available. After all, we would then actually be deceiving consumers with something that does not exist in reality, thus undermining our call for transparency and objectivity.
In conclusion, what we really should be concentrating on from now on is letting the facts speak for themselves. In this way, we should also encounter various emotions and, in addition to these facts, we have to demonstrate competence and transparency in this regard. On a final note, I would like to say one more thing, which is that the results of the Committee will be made available to all MEPs in electronic format today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Food Agency"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples