Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.9.2-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I have said since the time that I took up this position that it was my intention to make decisions on a science basis, examining the best scientific evidence available to me and making my decision on that basis. I have available to me a unanimous opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee. It is a further opinion expressed by that committee, following an earlier one. I make the decision on the basis of that. In my view it is a fully transparent process. The decision is based, as I say, on the opinion of the SSC. I cannot see that there is any lack of transparency in relation to that.
You raised the question of the precautionary principle. The application of the precautionary principle is sometimes not fully understood. It only applies in circumstances where either there is no scientific evidence or the scientific evidence that is available is so uncertain so as to be unreliable, and in circumstances where the damage that can be caused is of an irretrievable nature and the remedy that is proposed is proportionate, cost-effective and time-limited.
To compare the situation of BSE and hormones seems to me to be inappropriate. The precautionary principle is not being applied in relation to hormones. The decision in relation to hormones in beef and its importation is based on scientific evidence – that was supplied to the Commission before I came into office by the appropriate scientific committee – to the effect that one of the hormones in particular – 17 beta-estradiol – is a complete carcinogen.
Given that evidence, it seems to me to be appropriate to impose the ban. It also seems to me to be inappropriate to lift the ban with that opinion in place.
In relation to the BSE issue, once again it seems to me that the application of the precautionary principle is inappropriate because we have a firm opinion from the Scientific Steering Committee. Its members are drawn from most Member States of the European Union, scientists at the very pinnacle of their careers and abilities who advise on this issue. Therefore, I follow their advice. Since there is scientific advice on the issue the application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate.
In relation to the labelling issue, the whole question is currently being examined and is before Parliament. It will be open to Parliament to amend the legal principles if it so wishes.
You raised the question of Article 36. In my opinion Article 36 would be an inappropriate defence and would not provide a defence in the circumstances of this particular case. It does not provide, as I understand it, for a situation where there is a harmonised market as there is in this instance.
In relation to transmission, there is no evidence of any other form of transmission of BSE other than the two that have been identified, which are feed and maternal transmission. Until such evidence is available it is appropriate to proceed on the basis that these are the only two methods of transmission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples