Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.3.3-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, today the House has discussed three very important proposals with implications for food safety: proposals on undesirable substances, inspections in the field of animal nutrition and finally the marketing of compound feedingstuffs. Individually and collectively, these three proposals will address major shortcomings brought to light by the dioxin crisis.
On the basis of these scientific risk assessments the Commission will propose to the Member States appropriate measures to limit the presence of these substances in feedingstuffs. The European Parliament will, of course, be fully informed.
More generally, it is appropriate that the provisions of the annexes are periodically reviewed in the light of the developments of scientific and technological knowledge. Amendment No 38 is unacceptable as it falls outside the scope of this directive. Amendments Nos 39 and 40, proposing to delete the possibility of establishing an action threshold are similarly unacceptable. These action thresholds will act as early warning tools, alerting competent authorities and operators so that they actively prevent further contamination of the feed chain by identifying sources of contamination and measures to avoid repetition in the future.
Amendments Nos 41, 42, 43 and 44, proposing to reintroduce the possibility of dilution under certain conditions of contaminated feed materials are also unacceptable. I understand, from the contribution from Mrs Klaß that these amendments are being withdrawn. I am glad of that because they go against the main principle of the Commission's proposal, namely total prohibition of dilution of contaminated feed materials. In order to protect public health it is important that the overall contamination of food and the feed chain is reduced to a level as low as reasonably achievable. Dilution does not reduce the overall load of contamination in the food and feed chain.
However, I noted also the objections in Council to the total prohibition of dilution, but I am convinced that an acceptable solution can be found in order to prevent feedingstuffs becoming the waste bucket for contaminants.
In the second stage we will be able to address the issues raised by Mr Whitehead in relation to these particular matters.
Having extensively explained why the Commission cannot accept the Amendments Nos 18, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44, I am glad to say that the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 45, as these amendments constitute an important clarification of the Commission's proposal with the understanding that with some of these amendments, in particular Amendments Nos 3, 4, 30, 34 and 45, further editorial changes may improve the text.
Regarding Amendment Nos 20, the Commission can accept the insertion of a definition for consignment but the proposed definition itself needs further consideration as does the need to include other definitions.
To conclude, I wish once again to thank Mrs Paulsen for the excellent report which can be supported by the Commission to a very large extent.
Now I want to turn to the second major proposal for discussion today with important implications for food safety. Once again I would like to thank Mrs Paulsen and Mrs Auroi for the broad support given in their reports to the Commission proposal concerning controls in animal nutrition.
This proposal is the follow-up to one of my first commitments to improve food safety and provides for a system to exchange information in the field of animal nutrition, with particular reference to a rapid alert system and a legal basis to enable the adoption of safeguards measures for products produced within the Community and also the obligation for the Member States to have in place contingency plans to deal with feed emergencies.
Turning to the first proposal on undesirable substances, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Ms Paulsen, and the draftsman, Ms Auroi, and the committees for their very comprehensive report. The proposal amends the current legislation on undesirable substances. It forms part of the work programme of the Commission, which was welcomed by Parliament and the Council. The main principles of the proposal are: the introduction of the principle of non-dilution, the deletion of possible derogations for local reasons, the introduction of the possibility of establishing action thresholds besides maximum limits to act as an early warning tool and the extension of the scope of the directive to fix maximum limits for undesirable substances in feed additives.
Considering the amendments tabled for adoption in this plenary session, I appreciate Parliament's support of the proposal.
On behalf of the Commission, I can accept Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 23, 25 and 26 because they provide clarification and increase transparency. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 14, 17 – the first sentence in particular – and 19 concerning the deletion of the adjective "serious" when clarifying a risk for consistency with our general policy laid down in the General Products Safety Directive. In other terms, not all risks need immediate action at Community level.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 5 and 22 on the rapid alert system as they are currently worded. The Commission agrees to the addition in Amendment No 5 of the reference to changes in the current rapid alert system and I quote "after certain changes". This should be sufficient, considering our commitment to establish a rapid alert system covering all the food and feed chain in the new proposal on the food authority.
In principle, I am not against Amendments Nos 15, 16, 20 – last paragraph – concerning the change from "decontamination" to "rendering the product harmless" however we will introduce some editorial changes in relation to that.
On Amendment Nos 17, I accept the principle that the use of dangerous products shall be prohibited and that they should be recalled. The amendment needs editorial changes to make clear that these actions are within the responsibilities of the Member States. We cannot accept Amendment No 21, second indent, (a), because there is a linguistic misunderstanding: "cross-contamination" is the appropriate wording to be used. I accept Amendment No 24, subject to editorial changes, in order to make clear that the possibility for the Commission to carry out inspection "without prior notice" only refers to operators and not to the competent authorities.
Finally, we cannot accept Amendment No 27 introducing in the recitals, reference to civil and criminal liability in the event of loss or damage. It is not necessary. The basic Directive 95/53 already stipulates in Article 19 that penalties for non-compliance shall be commensurate and have a deterrent effect and when a responsibility is proven in the court civil and/or criminal liability apply.
Overall therefore, the Commission can fully accept 15 of the 27 amendments. I am grateful to the rapporteurs and to the honourable Members of the committees involved for their substantial support. I hope that our cooperation will continue with the same positive results when this proposal is discussed at the second stage.
This proposal will without doubt enhance the safety of feed. Prohibition of dilution will reduce the overall contamination load of animal feed. Operators at every stage in the production chain will be forced to put systems and practices in place to ensure that the feed materials and feedingstuffs they produce are safe. It will encourage a proactive approach to reducing contamination in the feed chain.
I am therefore very pleased that Ms Paulsen's report endorses these main principles of the Commission proposal. The Commission can accept many of the amendments proposed in the rapporteur's report. However, let me first address the amendments with which the Commission cannot agree. Amendment No 18 explicitly proposes to include water in the definition of feedingstuff. I fully agree that the same rules concerning the quality of feedingstuffs have to apply to the quality of water consumed by animals. Although the definition does not preclude water being considered as feedingstuff, it is clear from the Community legislation that water has not until now been considered as feedingstuff, as is clear from the fact that Council Directive 96/25 of 29 April 1996 on the circulation of feed materials, containing a non-exhaustive list of the main feed materials, does not include water in the list. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept this amendment, but will consider it in the context of a future amendment to that directive.
Secondly, the Commission cannot agree to Amendment No 27, in which Parliament proposes to delete the possibility of defining acceptability criteria for feed materials which have undergone certain decontamination procedures. In my opinion this amendment misses its purpose. In any case the Commission cannot accept an amendment which would prohibit decontamination. However strict quality criteria need to be laid down at Community level for these decontamination procedures.
Amendment No 33 deletes the possibility of exporting non-complying consignments to the country of origin. The Commission cannot accept this amendment. The possibility of re-exporting non-complying consignments to the country of origin should remain open. However, in order to meet Parliament's concern the Commission accepts that it is appropriate to insert an additional provision that re-export is possible after informing the competent authority of the country of origin and receiving assurances that the contaminated lot will be safely disposed of
Finally, the Commission cannot accept Amendment Nos 35, 36 and 37, proposing to amend the maximum limits for cadmium, mercury, lead dioxin and PCBs in certain feedingstuffs, since amendments to the annexes have to be based on a scientific risk assessment and have to be made by the Commission following the committee procedure. In relation to PCBs, work is currently being undertaken by the relevant scientific committee.
It is expected that this committee will report in October, by which time we will be in a position to consider what appropriate action can be taken under comitology.
The Commission will review the current provisions concerning cadmium and mercury as a priority and will ask the Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition to provide a scientific risk assessment for these heavy metals. This has already been done for dioxins and PCBs and it can be expected that this scientific risk assessment will become available, as I said, in October."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples