Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-05-Speech-4-089"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20010405.6.4-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". As the rapporteur states, it is important that the manufacturer of compound feedingstuffs, or whoever is responsible for labelling, provides a detailed list of all the raw materials used. The compulsory definition of acceptable raw materials in compound feedingstuffs for animals is also crucial, bearing the BSE and dioxin crises in mind. We must also ensure that all materials that put human and animal health at risk are banned. Nevertheless, this report was framed during a broader discussion of animal feedingstuffs, on which the Commission made a statement regarding the options for encouraging the planting of protein crops in the EU, taking account of the Agricultural Council of December 2000, which bans the use of animal meal in feedingstuffs for breeding animals, and insists on the need to replace animal protein with vegetable protein. The Commission’s proposal is based mainly on budgetary consequences, forgetting the basic principle of the sovereignty of food, when it states that the best and cheapest solution is to increase Community soya imports by 5%. This will make the EU more dependent for its vegetable protein, particularly soya meal, which could threaten food safety, on imports of genetically modified soya from the USA. Using the pretext of WTO rules and costs, the Commission is refusing to increase aid for growing oilseed crops because they contravene the Blair House agreement. Similarly it refuses to support the use of fallow land under the set-aside system, because this would be in conflict with the WTO’s blue box that requires agricultural aid to be conditional upon production-limiting measures. In this way, the Commission is refusing to encourage production within the EU. This is an unacceptable position, which we should reject, although we support the report, for which we have voted."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph