Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.13.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we discuss this report dealing with animal by-products that are not intended for human consumption, we must not speak exclusively of waste products.
The basis for a very specific distinction is provided by the submission from the Commission, which divides the materials into three categories. They must be separately registered, stored, treated and marketed, and evidence of each operation must be recorded. The items that must be destroyed and removed from the food chain are quite clearly defined, as are the conditions for their removal and destruction. We are all agreed that contaminated and inferior material has no place in the food chain. On the other hand, we can treat and then re-use important nutrient carriers that were properly prepared for their original use. Strict rules govern the procedure for such recycling. Here we have the example of pigswill. To allow the use of pigswill, the Committee on the Environment adopted Amendment No 10 on the recycling of catering waste. There is pressure to adopt this particular amendment within a short time frame. The directive on swine fever enters into force on 1 November and imposes a blanket ban on the feeding of catering waste. And this is why I ask you, Commissioner, whether Compromise Amendment 25 that has been set before us lifts this ban. A legal loophole must not be created here, because the existing processing facilities produce hygienic feed which contributes neither to the spread of classical swine fever nor to that of foot and mouth disease. I believe Amendment No 10 was good, which is why the committee adopted it. It is for this reason that I asked my absolutely clear and unequivocal question about the new compromise amendment on the table. We should take particular care to ensure that we make clear and unambiguous statements and that we leave no scope for confusing double standards and overlaps between different regulations. This sort of thing affects small and medium-sized abattoirs. For that reason, we must support Amendment No 2 to Article 4.
May I reiterate my sincere thanks to Mrs Paulsen for this report? It is a matter of the safety of our food chain, which is, after all, very closely connected with the health of consumers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples