Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-298"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-04-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Identification, registration and labelling of beef2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000411.11.2-298"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-04-11-Speech-2-2992
lpv:speaker	lp:Dorette Corbey2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the discussion on labelling beef is quite loaded. An important question is whether the “Origin: EU” label should be permitted as an added option. The Commission thinks it should. Many in Parliament believe that it is the country of origin that should be on the label. The background to this is the food crises. I could not agree more that beef should be completely traceable and that this should be the case as soon as possible. I also understand that consumers increasingly want information on the country of origin or region of origin concerning their food. This is often a matter of taste. Furthermore, I agree with the analysis that the “Origin: EU” label could be abused by countries where food safety is not regulated. But I do not advocate scrapping the option of including “Origin: EU” on the label either. In my opinion, we should choose another approach. We need to prescribe conditions for the use of the “Origin: EU” label. One condition, for example, could be that the identification and registration system must be fully implemented and observed. There are, of course, other means of enforcing compliance, but this method is far more direct. Parliament has to keep an eye on compliance with the directives it produces. This approach has the added advantage that the “Origin: EU” label has a positive ring to it. Rather than being a cover-up for countries where food quality needs to be regulated, the “Origin: EU” label is thus a quality guarantee. If the producer prefers to indicate the country of origin nonetheless, this is possible too. There are a number of additional arguments as to why “Origin: EU” labelling should be possible. For example, the meat industry and retail trade have raised all kinds of practical objections and pointed at the red tape which too detailed information would entail. I will not spend any time on this argument, as it is not of key importance, in my opinion. However, I would like to ask your attention for a question of principle. The internal market is a large entity. The principle of mutual recognition is fundamental. Mutual recognition requires trust, and trust requires common standards, especially in the case of food safety. If we prohibit the use of the “Origin: EU” label, we would be resigning ourselves to a kind of re-nationalisation of the internal market. We would then be accepting that we have more confidence in certain countries than others and this is a sign of little faith in our own food safety policy. This is unacceptable in my view. All EU Member States need to guarantee safe meat. “Origin: EU” is then a symbol for quality and I therefore advocate backing Amendments Nos 60 and 61."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph