Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.3.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"By way of introduction, let me point out that Directive 79/112 clearly sets out the purpose of food labelling, by stating that the prime concern of all rules on food labelling should be to inform and protect the consumer.
Consumers need to have confidence in the food they eat. In this case, the aim is not simply to change our tastes and our traditions in regard to chocolate, but to deal properly at last with the consequences of “mad cow” disease. It is quite astounding that, given the gravity of the situation, today, so many years after the crisis, we still do not have an effective system of traceability in place. We do not propose to repeat the debate we had in December 1999, but the Commission would have been well-advised to scrupulously monitor the application of that regulation; so once again it committed a serious political mistake.
Let us look back for a moment at the embargo on beef. Although one swallow does not make a summer, in this case the French Government gave precedence to reason and caution over the ideology of the single market. Knowing the options that exist in matters European, we can gauge what that must have cost it. The reason why France chose this option is that the Community institutions are not always able
to ensure real traceability of food products.
Our consumer information and protection system is totally inadequate: for example, there is no way a citizen of the Union can know whether ravioli imported from another Member State contains any British beef. Should the general public trust a Commission that does not ensure the compulsory traceability of beef yet lifts the embargo?
I did not find it acceptable for the Commission to teach lessons to France, which, for its part, knows that the impact of the voluntary rules it adopted effectively helped restore consumer confidence. Indeed we also defended that point of view by tabling amendments in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
We note with satisfaction that some of the amendments we tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the Environment were adopted.
The Committee on the Environment amended important points of the Commission proposal. It is high time we set up a reliable and transparent system. During this vote, we supported the rapid and rigorous application of traceability, with a view to ensuring unfailing traceability and clear and transparent information, and we are satisfied with the results. We hope that today’s vote will not lead to new and shameful calls for an extension or a derogation a few months hence."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"at this point in time"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples