Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.9.3-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, as I look around this Chamber I see many faces of people whom, I am happy to say, I have got to know very well over the last twelve months. One thing I can say with conviction is that I am aware that all these people before me are experts on the question of food safety. Many of you have been involved in this issue for quite a number of years, particularly in the formidable committee that sat a number of years ago on this question. Indeed you have been involved in this issue longer than I have. I know the commitment that all of you have to it. Therefore, this debate has been of considerable interest and value to me as a Member of the Commission with responsibility for public health and consumer protection, and special responsibility for food safety.
The tests that I am referring to now are somewhat different. They are not intended to give us information relating to the level of infectivity. They are more focused on the question of trying to keep out of the food chain carcasses that may be infected. It has been said that this will be very expensive, will involve a large number of carcasses and so on.
Let us focus on facts. The three tests available – French, Swiss and Irish – are unable to detect BSE in animals under a certain age. The result will be negative. You will go to the expense and trouble of carrying out those tests and you will get negative findings. Therefore, what is the value of carrying out those tests on young animals? None in my opinion. But we also have the weight of scientific evidence that animals under a certain age do not manifest symptoms of BSE. Therefore, I have asked the Standing Veterinary Committee, sitting today as we speak, to examine this issue to determine at what age these tests should be carried out. What I am talking about is carrying out these tests on carcasses of animals over a certain age to detect whether infectivity exists and, if it does, eliminate the animal from the food chain.
We have a situation of younger animals where there is no BSE, we are told by the scientists, and the older animals above that certain age, all of them having been tested to determine whether there is BSE or not, and they are eliminated from the food chain. This is a consumer protection measure and also a measure to enhance consumer confidence. That is why I have suggested that we take this route and I am looking forward to the advice we get from the SVC this afternoon which I intend to bring before the Council of Ministers next week to discuss this particular issue in relation to the question of the age at which the demarcation should take place.
I believe that is the right way forward. There are a number of disputes on this and, as I see in this Chamber, there are different views in relation to it, but it is important that we row together on this. It is important that we try and achieve a consensus as to the right way forward and find proportionate responses and not make accusations to others who, when they identify a proportionate response, say that you are not doing enough to protect consumer public health and consumer protection. It is legitimate to draw lines in circumstances where you are fairly sure of the line you are drawing in the sand – safe on one side and not on the other. We must make sure we are fair to one another in identifying these measures which all of us believe to be necessary, because the aim of this exercise is the protection of public health and food safety and the enhancement of consumer confidence.
Finally, I listened with great interest to my friend, Mr Patriat's, comments both earlier and just now and I look forward to working closely with him in relation to these issues over the next number of weeks. I should tell you that he and I have had a discussion on this very issue as recently as last week in Paris, so I am confident that Parliament, the Council and the Commissioner can work together in a non-acrimonious manner to produce answers to this serious difficulty that we are faced with.
I am struck by one thing that is particularly important in this context, that is, that the spectrum of debate, particularly on the issue of whether there should be a total ban on meat-and-bone meal goes all the way from "do it" to "don't do it" – in a Chamber filled with experts on food safety. That is one of the issues that we have to address.
What we must bear in mind when considering this issue is the fact that there is already in existence a ban on the provision of meat-and-bone meal to cattle. That ban is in place. That is the law and that is what should be complied with. In addition, there is legislation in place setting out how the meat-and-bone meal, how this feed, is to be processed – another safeguard that is introduced into the system to protect public health and food safety.
By saying that you must ban meat-and-bone meal from feed for pigs and poultry that cannot contract BSE by this vector, what you are saying is not that you are protecting pigs and poultry, but that you are protecting cattle. You are therefore saying that the legislation that is in place is in some way inadequate or not being complied with. If there is a belief that there is a widespread disregard for the law on this issue, what does that say about what has been happening over the last few months and years in relation to feed for cattle? It raises the question that I am afraid to even ask. Ask yourselves what is the answer to that question.
I believe that there has been compliance with the legislation and if I believe that – and I do not think I am being naïve – I do not believe that it is essential to have a widespread ban on meat-and-bone meal to be fed to pigs and poultry. But I am willing to listen to the evidence on this issue. If people from Member States come and tell me that the legislation has not been properly or fully implemented then maybe we will have to think again, but it will not be because the scientists tell us it is necessary, but because there is a failure to comply with the law in the European Union. That is an issue we must seriously reflect on.
Let me move on to the question of testing.
Mr Whitehead asked me for more details in relation to this and I think he is correct in that I should have stressed this a bit more in what I had to say.
There are two kinds of testing involved here. Firstly there is the one already in place, legislation having been brought before Parliament some time ago by the Commission for random post-mortem testing throughout the Member States amounting to 170 000 tests. The purpose of those tests was to identify the level of infectivity in the European Union. It was to get information. I welcome the fact that France moved quickly and, before any other Member State, started doing this work at a higher level than was set out in the legislation. Now it is getting this information. Therefore it is faced with the current situation. It has been fully transparent in the provision of information relating to these tests. That is also to be welcomed and applauded.
Let us reflect on another issue here which causes me some concern. If there is a widespread adverse reaction against the authorities in France for doing the right thing, I hope it does not instil timidity in other Member States when they do exactly the same. If they conduct the tests in a similar way to France, ensuring that they focus on animals that are most at risk, and carry out the number of tests that are required, we will get exactly the kind of information that France has and that will be available right throughout the European Union so we can make the required decisions and move on."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples