Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.6.2-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I should like to add my voice to the congratulations addressed to our rapporteurs, particularly Mrs Roth-Behrendt. Her approach and hence her report is one we can wholeheartedly support.
This regulation is not a major revolution, but it does attempt nonetheless to afford a higher level of protection, based, moreover, on the most stringent practices adopted in specific European Union countries, such as in France.
I should, however, like to draw your attention to a number of specific points and, firstly, the existence of a third transmission route which is now practically certain. I think it essential in this case to define suspect animals quite apart from the age criterion. The age criterion ceases to be justified as soon as we are practically assured that this third transmission route does in fact exist. The important thing, then, is to have systematic recourse to testing whenever an animal dies of unknown causes. Systematic testing precludes fraud and makes it possible to offer better guarantees.
The issue of slaughtering herds has been discussed at length. In both France and Germany the whole herd is slaughtered if a single animal is found to be diseased. We know that this is not the practice in Great Britain, and that this is a solution which is vigorously opposed by our fellow Members from the United Kingdom. But is it possible to put the argument of the costs of destroying a herd when a public health issue is involved? I think this is not a tenable position. It is important for the regulations of the various countries of the European Union to be harmonised.
I should, finally, like to talk about at-risk materials, these notorious substances which may present risks. Once again, in France, a number of measures have been implemented, which have been more or less understood, but I am convinced that it is essential to be extremely vigilant and to apply the precautionary principle.
So this regulation is a good one. It represents some progress, but it is capable of being perfected rather than perfect as it stands. It does not raise any questions concerning the incineration of animal-based meal. In some of our countries, we have stockpiles of such meal which we do not yet know how best to destroy, or which has not been destroyed sufficiently, and also animal-based meal used for swine and poultry. I think, Commissioner, that these are questions we also have to ask."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples