Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.3.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is the duty of this Parliament and this Commission to protect the health of all citizens of the European Union. That is what we are trying to do in this report, on which I congratulate Mrs Paulsen. Certainly the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was the correct committee to bring these proposals forward in view of what we have heard. We have had to learn lessons from the dioxin scandal.
The Commission has now proposed deleting the derogation for compound foodstuffs and having the option of fixing action thresholds below the maximum permitted limits in cases of real emergency.
Like the rapporteur, I believe that there is a case for doing all these things and for looking at the substances she referred to when they are not in themselves toxic but show increases in the aggregated levels. Animal feed, which has proven to be unsafe, should certainly be removed from the food chain. That is not just a precaution, it is common sense.
I want to sound one note of caution. Common sense has two sides. If we are going to propose that, for example, there should be a tenfold reduction in the materials which are permitted to enter the European Union for blending down by approved food manufacturers, we ought to be certain that there is a sound scientific basis for that proposal. The Commissioner will know that in my country the Independent Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs was worried that such a ban may actually drive out blending-down procedures into the world outside the EU where they are less likely to be correctly monitored and controlled for any future entry into the Union. The committee agreed that there needed to be upper limits for undesirable ingredients, above which the materials would have to be destroyed.
By the second reading we need to have the Commission's view on how the risk assessment will be carried out. That is a very simple request which is not connected with any specific amendment proposed this first reading. It may well determine, however, how we can vote at that stage. I suspect it will also determine how we are able to make the case which the Commission quite properly wants to make for clean food in Europe, outside the European Union, to those third country exporters who will be affected by the new levels and to the WTO, if any challenges to what we are doing are mounted there.
We look forward to hearing from the Commission how it will demonstrate that its response here is not only precautionary – which it clearly is – but also proportionate."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples