Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-236"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.16.2-236"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, if I may reiterate the point somewhat more clearly, why is this distinction made? The provisions that entered into force on 1 September of last year relate to indications on the label providing information that can be ascertained at the abattoir. Every animal has a numbered ear-tag, and if I pass the tag on with the meat, the meat can be retraced to the animal. Secondly, the place of slaughter is obviously a piece of information I can provide at an abattoir, and I can also state where the carcass was cut up.
The other problem that has been acute since 1 January 2001 is that we also wish to indicate the places where the animal was born and reared. I cannot establish that information at the abattoir, however, unless the animal comes to me with its life history, so to speak, and for this to work properly we need a suitable form of computerised registration. This is where we have the problem, and it is also the reason why the second part of the system has to come into general use at a later date. The fact is that not every Member State has been keeping the requisite data for long enough to have every animal’s place of birth stored in a computer.
Even on 1 January 2002, this data will still not be available for every animal, but it will be possible to make a very precise distinction by that date. High-quality meat and meat bearing a seal of quality will have the required information on its label, normally in the form of a code rather than a printed name. From that point, no other meat will be marketable as quality meat. That is the procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples