Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-129"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-05-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000516.6.2-129"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-05-16-Speech-2-1302
lpv:speaker	lp:Efstratios Korakas2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-07-21--2001-02-07)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the proposal for a regulation under discussion does not aim to address the problems, as the Commission hypocritically claims, but to cover up the problems which have arisen in certain countries, thereby generalising them and making them everybody’s problem. This is why this proposal needs to be changed, particularly where it specifies classifying countries into categories. If the Commission really wanted to protect public health from spongiform encephalopathies, it would have proposed rules to prevent such risks a long time ago, but it did not. It would have made provision for the necessary procedures and penalties. But the interests of multinational food corporations, which have subjugated everything to the rationale of excessive profit, precluded any such action. So, this Commission initiative only made its appearance once the situation had got out of control – with dioxin for example – and is now endeavouring to show that it has some control over the situation. The conclusion which we draw from this draft regulation is that it is probably an attempt to cover up the situation. That is the direction in which things are heading with the classification of countries, which, rather than taking into account the most basic factor, which is the existence or non-existence of cases of encephalopathy in their raised cattle, takes account of other factors when allocating countries to a particular category. The worst thing about this is that, theoretically, if a member state in which cases of encephalopathy have been reported can prove that it has established systems for monitoring production, it could be placed in the same category as a country in which no cases have ever been reported. This same spirit, this “lowest common denominator” approach, pervades the rest of the proposed measures, such as the mandatory removal of various organs (spleen, brain, spinal cord, etc.). Such measures will blacken the reputation of meat-producing countries in which there have been no cases of encephalopathy and will also discredit sheepmeat and goatmeat, since there is no substantial scientific evidence as to whether this meat is sensitive to spongiform encephalopathy pathogens. At the same time, the proposal to remove the aforementioned organs and tissues is a recipe for disaster for sheep- and goatmeat, which will be impossible to market; in other words, this measure will indirectly oust sheep and goat meat from the market, demand will be met by other types of meat from larger animals and traditional recipes using offal such as intestines and spleen will be banned. We therefore oppose the Commission proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph