Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-021"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20001004.3.3-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I am delivering this opinion for Mrs Auroi, who drafted it for the committee. The majority of the committee adopted amendments to the opinion, amendments to which Mrs Auroi did not wish to subscribe. That is why it now falls to me to deliver the opinion, and I want to make the House clearly aware of this conflict of views. The problem we have been considering is that of minimum and maximum values and the issue of dilution. You know that, during the BSE crisis, Parliament constantly called for these stricter directives and regulations for animal feed, and we also insisted that there must be no dilution, because maximum values, of course, always mean that something is in the feed and that we are making animals or people the final repositories of such substances, however minimal their volume. At that time we said that, if we accept maximum values, there must also be a dilution ban. Our rapporteur had proposed that basic substances, components, which were not authorised for human consumption should not be used in animal feed either and would therefore have to be diluted with other substances until their content fell below the maximum permitted value. She also examined the other side of the coin. There are areas where farmers grow basic substances which exceed these maximum values. What about the people who produce these substances? Mrs Auroi said that they were helpless to prevent the excessively high values. At the same time, those who obtain these feed products cannot help the fact that the farmers are unable to alter the nature of their produce! That was the essence of the conflict. I can understand why the rapporteur dissociated herself from the amended opinion. Let me make a suggestion to the Commission as to how this problem could be tackled. If this type of dilution is permitted, there must at least be a requirement to notify the monitoring bodies, and the fact that such dilution occurs must be made public, because the public also need to be aware of this problem and discuss it. ( )"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph