Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.8.2-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have already pointed out why only organic farms can be considered for planting clover or clover grass. By the way, I am sure that Lucerne is also included, I see no problem with that. It is vital to bear in mind that we should not let this measure undermine our WTO commitments, or else the whole thing will collapse and we will have achieved the exact opposite of what we want to achieve, because in that case we would not be able to help our farmers, and we would actually be harming them. As regards growing high-protein feed in the form of field beans and field peas and so forth, we have undertaken to investigate this whole issue from the demand side as well as from the supply side. This investigation is under way. It is too late for the present production year anyway, because changes to the existing market regime would be needed in any case, and from a purely technical point of view it is too late to do that before these high-protein plants are planted. So this is only achievable for the next production year, and that means that we still have time to carry out a proper investigation.
As far as imports are concerned, it is true to say that we annually import – chiefly from South America at present – around 30 million tonnes of soya and other high-protein feeds. The shortfall which has now arisen in the form of 2.5 million tonnes of meat and bonemeal amounts to less than 10% of that. It is also necessary, and no final decision has been taken on this yet, to check whether this ban on feeding animal and bone meal to pigs and poultry will remain in force or whether the ban will be modified. In this connection, my colleague Commissioner Byrne is currently having inspections carried out in all 15 Member States to establish whether there are models that already work or whether there are problems with checks everywhere. So I cannot yet give a definitive reply on this.
Turning to Mr Hyland's question about tests, let me make one thing crystal clear: our first goal must always be to guarantee consumer safety. That is why we believe that it is of paramount importance for all animals over 30 months old to be tested, even if individual animals then have to be disposed of. Why? Because we otherwise run the risk, if we leave this totally in the hands of the Member States or the sector itself, that there will be a kind of pre-selection between those animals that are tested and those animals that people do not want to test. That implies certain risks which we want to avoid at all costs.
Our aim is to bring forward the date of 1 July so that all animals over 30 months old are tested in all Member States as from 1 April at the latest. That means that the alternative I have presented to you here can also be put into practice."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples