Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.8.1-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the role of the protein-rich oil plant sector in Europe is not just an agricultural problem, but in many ways, a social issue.
Mr President of the Commission, we now want ...
First and foremost, it is a food security issue. European consumers quite rightly require all the elements of the food chain to be traceable. In the case of the protein fodder needed for livestock farming, Europe cannot be content to rely on external supply for more than three quarters of its needs. Community production must regain a dominant share of the market in order to avoid risks relating to residues, contaminants or GMOs.
The Union has decided to apply a moratorium prohibiting the use of new GMOs in foodstuffs for humans and animals. We know, however, that soya-exporting countries mainly grow GMOs.
The second issue is the quantitative security of the world market. The supply of protein fodder is concentrated in a very small number of countries, primarily the United States, which represents 45% of world production, and 90% of pressing is carried out by four industrial groups. If a meteorological disaster were to occur, Europe would be in an extremely vulnerable position.
Furthermore, this market is growing by 5% per year, and it would be even more senseless for Europe not to be involved in this growth since internal demand within the Union, including demand in the future Member States, where meat consumption will increase on accession, is destined to experience sustained growth.
This is also a significant environmental issue. Let us not forget that increased cultivation of protein-rich oil plants fosters biodiversity, improves soil structure, counters the tendency towards single-crop cultivation and reduces the use of chemicals.
The increasing protein shortfall in the Union should, therefore, be a matter of the utmost priority for the Commission. This, however, is not the case at all. In response to these issues, and in order to replace animal meal, the Commission is merely proposing that we resign ourselves to seeing an increasing percentage of our consumption rely on imports, over which we would have no control with regard to price, production conditions, or compliance with the social and environmental specifications we impose on our own farmers.
Quite simply, this is unacceptable. That is why our Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has pursued a far more dynamic strategy in adopting the Stevenson report, which aims to infuse a little political will into the feeble Commission communication.
The amendments we tabled in Committee emphasise the contrast between the seriousness of the European situation and the substantial subsidies implemented by the United States, in particular within the framework of the Farm Bill in favour of their oilseed crop producers. They ask the Commission to examine how to renegotiate the Blair House agreement with a view to increasing protein production s in the Union and to augmenting supplementary aid for protein crops that are not affected by the Blair House agreement. They suggest setting up a safety net in favour of oilseed and protein crop producers and lastly, undertaking the necessary research work into these crops."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples