Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.8.2-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – It is important that I make it absolutely clear that the primary consideration in the imposition of the ban on meat-and-bone meal is public health. It is also the protection of animals, but essentially the scientific evidence available to us shows that the transmission of BSE disease to animals is through the consumption of meat-and-bone meal. Ultimately that would put at risk humans eating the meat. That is why we put legislation in place to remove this specified risk material from the food chain. So there are two blocks.
The first is the question of meat-and-bone meal. As I said, the fundamental consideration in putting in place the ban on meat-and-bone meal is public health and the protection of animals. However, as you probably know, this is a controversial issue. Some MEPs and others take the view that the ban is too extensive and should be revised. I do not agree, because I believe that it is by no means clear from the tests undertaken and the research done at the instigation of the Commission in Member States, particularly the work being undertaken by the Food and Veterinary Office, that the controls in place in respect of meat-and-bone meal are sufficiently secure. The need for these controls arises in circumstances where there might be a relaxation of the ban on meat-and-bone meal, but not for feeding to ruminants. There can never be a relaxation of the ban on meat-and-bone meal for ruminants. It might be relaxed for pigs and poultry, which cannot contract BSE and therefore the consumption of meat-and-bone meal is not a danger to them.
The problem is that if the rule on the feeding meat-and-bone meal to poultry, for instance, is relaxed, there is a risk that meat-and-bone meal intended to be fed to poultry or pigs might ultimately reach ruminants, creating the very danger that we are trying to obviate.
Therefore I do not see the ban on meat-and-bone meal being relaxed in the short term. However, this can be reviewed in the context of the TSE regulation, in particular Chapter 4, where an amendment can be made by comitology. I indicated to Parliament when discussing the TSE regulation on a previous occasion that, although this amendment can take place by comitology, I have given an undertaking that I will come back to Parliament and, even though it is not strictly required under the legislation, discuss with Parliament what is the best way forward.
I want to make it absolutely clear to Mrs Müller that cost is not the consideration. I am sorry if you have been led to that conclusion because I have not made myself clear. The primary considerations are the protection of animals and public health and the ban can never be relaxed for the purposes I have identified unless we can be absolutely sure that the controls in place in Member States do not create the risk instead of obviating it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples