Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010614.12.4-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report unanimously approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 25 April on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever proposes an early diagnosis system and maintenance of the Community method for controlling the disease and slaughter, since not enough progress has yet been made on marker vaccines.
Nevertheless, in this very House, Amendment No 102 in the Paulsen report, reviewed in this very part-session, was approved and I do not want to go against the feelings of this House. I therefore understand that both Amendment No 33 and Amendment No 37 are acceptable because they may lead us to a more realistic solution to the animal feed control problem.
The reason for applying a policy of non-vaccination is based on the fact that in the event of infection vaccinated pigs may become carriers of the virus, especially pregnant sows, which may not show signs of the disease but may transmit it horizontally to the other pigs on the farm and vertically to their progeny, which may include persistently infected piglets.
In addition, as regards the differentiation of animals that have been vaccinated or have had the disease and generated antibodies, this differentiation between vaccinated and infected animals is not yet reliable. Research will have to continue into this until these marker vaccines are effectively reliable and we are able to use differential methods that indicate whether the animals have been vaccinated or have had the disease.
This legislation improves certain prophylactic rules, clarifies definitions and proposes the inclusion of the ‘Diagnostic Manual’ as an annex to the Directive. In addition, the amendments introduced refer to animal welfare standards on the farm and during transport, and emergency solutions are proposed for cases of serious health crises which prevent animal movements for long periods, such as buying-in schemes, which the Commission has certainly never done before.
It is also proposed that this health legislation should extend to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and that they should be included in the plans to control classical swine fever. Several amendments to this document have been tabled which your rapporteur feels deserve some comment.
There is one amendment, No 34, tabled by Mr Mulder on behalf of the ELDR Group, which seems logical, but given that the health control authorities are national, trying to divide up the European Union into regions that belong to different countries and do not coincide with national borders seems unfeasible. I would ask Mr Mulder, who is present, whether the Dutch will be able to control German farms or whether the Germans will control Dutch farms. I do not think either side will agree to this.
Amendment No 35, tabled by Mr Mulder, goes against both my feelings and the spirit of the report. If the animal is not eliminated, vaccination will not eliminate the virus and the marketing of meat from vaccinated animals in the European Union would mean less safety for our consumers than for those of third countries. We would in principle be unable to export, and anyway this news in the press would ruin the industry. Fresh meat from vaccinated animals carries the virus and may infect healthy animals that feed on swill containing it. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No 35.
As for Amendment No 36, also tabled by Mr Mulder, we again come up against the subject of co-financing, and I am also against it.
There are two other amendments: Nos 33, tabled by Mr Böge on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, and 37, tabled by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. These two amendments go a little beyond what I could have imagined, since in my country the use of swill has been banned for more than twenty years."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples