Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.8.2-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, on the occasion of this debate on the foot-and-mouth epidemic, I would firstly like to express my unwavering solidarity with all those working in the farming industry, who have already been dealt a cruel blow by the BSE crisis which threw the markets into disarray, and especially with all cattle farmers, most of whom work to rigorously high standards, using methods which respect both the environment and the animals on their farms and who have now been severely affected by this latest crisis which has left them feeling totally helpless.
I would like to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the urgent steps that must be taken in order to combat this disease, in this situation which is extremely difficult to control, since vaccination was stopped in the European Union in 1991, and, on the other hand, the subsequent measures to be taken once the disease is under control, so that a disaster of this kind can never happen again.
What will need to be done? First of all, we need to initiate an in-depth discussion of the developments in farming which have allowed such diseases to occur. Were we right to allow such intensive farming to take place and become increasingly widespread and specialised, employing processes that were increasingly artificial? Were we right to have so few abattoirs, which caused local abattoirs to close down, and which encouraged intensive farming and made it necessary to systematically transport animals over long distances?
We will then have to thoroughly re-examine the international rules laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health which, in their current state, seem absurd and obsolete. Currently, if a living animal is vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease within a particular country, that country will lose its status as a foot-and-mouth-free country, and is therefore banned from exporting. Who cannot see that this arbitrary rule blatantly favours the United States?
We must also deal with bilateral trade exchanges, as each country can freely negotiate the conditions governing exports with Russia, Japan or other countries. We must also take a regionalist approach. There is no reason why any Member State, even the whole of the European Union, should be considered as a homogenous entity in this area. There is no reason why a case of foot-and-mouth in Brittany should affect Alsace, nor why a country that has 1 000 cases of infection such as Great Britain and a country that has two cases such as France should be treated in the same way.
Furthermore, we will have to give serious thought to whether it was the right decision to ban a preventative vaccination that has been used in the Community since 1991. Should we not at least authorise the vaccination of rare animals, reproductive animals, and even milk herds? To enable this to be done, it is imperative that we encourage research and development into marker vaccines which enable a vaccinated animal to be distinguished from an infected animal.
Finally, we will have to find the resources required to encourage holdings, especially small and medium-sized holdings where rearing and fattening are carried out in the same place, which reduces the risks of spreading diseases since integrating birth, rearing and slaughter at the same holding is a vital factor in preventing the spread of disease. This role must be fully acknowledged under the common policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples