Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.6.2-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The official objective of the Commission’s proposal on the European Food Authority is to improve the prevention of crises such as mad cow disease. In reality, however, we are watching the creation of a perfectly deliberate system intended to hinder those Member States who would like to use their own powers of national safeguard in the case of a public-health crisis (as France did at the end of 1999, when, to the chagrin of the Commission, it continued to maintain its unilateral embargo on British beef), and in so doing to preserve as much as possible the sacrosanct free circulation of products.
Although the only objective of the new European body is to give scientific opinions to the Community institutions and to Member States, it is obvious that it will circumvent or neutralise the opinions of national food-safety agencies, such as the AFSSA in France, so as to prevent governments from having a legitimate reason to base their decisions on those agencies.
The new body is to be governed by a management board composed of 16 members, four of whom will be appointed by the European Parliament, four by the Council, four by the Commission and the other four acting as representatives of consumers and the industry, and appointed by the Commission (Article 24). Half of the members are thus appointed by the Commission, and all of them are appointed by the European institutions. None of them are appointed by the national food-safety agencies, which would have been essential if everyone was supposed to be working together as a network, but obviously that was never the intention.
In order to sew things up even more securely, the executive director will be appointed by the management board, following a proposal by the Commission (Article 25) and the members of the scientific groups will be appointed by that same board, following a proposal by the executive director (Article 27). Who is going to believe that such a structure will not support the Commission’s views?
Article 22 explains that the new system will provide ‘the best possible scientific opinions’, thereby devaluing all others. The central body is called ‘the European Food Authority’ (or ‘the Authority’ for short, with a capital ‘A’). The name should have been ‘Agency’ because in theory this body will be simply issuing opinions, but the Commission insists absolutely on the word ‘Authority’, and it is easy to see why. Moreover, it is a ‘Food Authority’ rather than a ‘Food Safety Authority’, so as to expand its scope to cover the vast areas listed in Article 21. Among the areas listed, we also find, placed modestly at the end, genetically modified organisms. Who could be in any doubt that one of the first ‘opinions’ of the ‘Authority’ will advise that the issuing of authorisations for GMOs should be resumed?
We are dismayed, yet again, to see national states allowing themselves to be caught in such crude traps, which will mean that in future they will no longer be able to protect their citizens. Yet when all is said and done, perhaps that is what they really want."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples