Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.11.2-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, beef labelling has two distinct functions. Firstly, traceability in the case of a food safety incident – the recent E. coli outbreak in Scotland for example – and, secondly, to give consumers information about the origin of beef at the point of sale. The two should not be confused. For traceability we need maximum information made available to the authorities as and when required but the consumer label should be simple, concise and unambiguous.
The need for information sprang from the BSE crisis. Member States have differing levels of BSE incidence but there are also variations in the measures to eradicate the disease and protect human health. Although the United Kingdom has the highest incidence of BSE, it also has the most comprehensive control measures. Other countries, which admittedly have lower declared levels of BSE, operate a whole-herd slaughter policy which entails the risk of the under-reporting of cases. Therefore people want to know which country their beef comes from.
Reference to regions should not be an alternative to country of origin but a voluntary addition. Even regions like Yorkshire, Britain’s premier region and coincidentally the region I represent, are not known by every citizen throughout the EU. From a marketing and promotional point of view smaller areas and localities could be used, as well as regional breeds such as Aberdeen Angus. The well established description of Scotch beef should continue to be used.
Small traditional butcher shops that sell beef unpackaged should be allowed to display information as an alternative to labelling each item. Many consumers would be confused if given information about hanging or maturation, which could be mixed up with sell-by dates in their minds.
I would draw attention particularly to Amendment No 41 which seeks to exclude farmers from Community aid schemes if the regulation is not strictly adhered to. I have already had cases drawn to my attention regarding other EU schemes where honest errors by farmers, who are not professional bureaucrats, have resulted in punitive sanctions which often threaten the future of a family farm. We should not go down this road. The listing of antibiotics and stimulants that might have been administered would, if adopted, create a two-tier beef market. Animal welfare would be compromised as farmers would be reluctant to treat animals therapeutically. Similarly, reference to fattening methods should not be introduced.
I hope that in amending this regulation Parliament can for once simplify rather than embellish and make the labelling of beef consumer-, butcher- and farmer-friendly."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples