Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-05-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020905.1.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, over the past few years – since 1996, I would say – I have told this House at least five times that animal feed should not be a dustbin for cheaply disposing of all kinds of rubbish. It is surprising to find that such a simple statement never ceases to be topical and is never a source of boredom, given that it remains so topical. Why should that be? Because of our agricultural policy, of course. Since we try to produce everything as cheaply as possible, it makes sense to produce cattle feed as cheaply as possible too.
I once said that the manufacturers and we ourselves should try to picture sitting down in front of a plate of animal feed with a knife and fork on either side – just imagine what that would look like! Mr Bowis just pointed out that this is not just a matter of carelessness here but of criminal intent. He is quite right. To describe storing animal feed in a former chemical works as carelessness is to put it mildly. I do not know what makes people do things like that or allow them to happen. What are we to think when a waste disposal company produces glucose syrup as a parallel activity? Should we not perhaps be somewhat sceptical when we come across an Irish company wanting to dispose of its waste – to which there can be no objections as such – and we see that it wants to do this in Belgium and that the waste reprocessing company also produces glucose syrup? The waste that it is processing comes from washing the coating on contraceptive pills, which of course contains sugar.
No one actually noticed this and we all found it quite normal, but when it actually came to light in the course of the monitoring process it caused enormous excitement.
If we do not start to change the system in some way, we will carry on having this debate here at least three times a year. So what can we change about the system? I am grateful to Commissioner Byrne for pinpointing some ideas. Yes, we need tough legislation on feed hygiene. Yes, we need to separate the production of animal and plant-based feeds. Yes, we need stricter approval procedures for feed producers, with a registration system for factories producing animal feeds. And yes, every manufacturer of feedingstuffs must employ a biochemist at his plant full-time and not just source one from somewhere else. These are all commonplace ideas that we could all suggest, of course.
What is the situation with legislation on waste? Yes, there is indeed proper waste legislation. Are there proper controls in the Member States? Apparently neither the country of origin nor the receiving country carries out controls. Will the Commission go to the European Court of Justice more quickly? Will countries which are obviously ignoring their control obligations under the existing legislation be prosecuted more quickly and suffer appropriate penalties? What is the position as regards controls in the Member States? Since the BSE crisis, we have established that the real Bermuda Triangle within the European Union is the system of controls in the Member States. We should be obliging all Member States to, at last, make the process more transparent and to tell us how many people are carrying out controls on what, when, where and with what result. That can just be one page, nice and transparent, available to anyone, and on the Internet if you like. Is that too much to ask? No, it is not too much to ask!
We have been saying for years – since 1996 – that we want a positive list of substances and additives in animal feed. Commissioner Byrne told us that the feasibility study is almost complete, so we should be able to start soon. I am grateful for that. However, if we do not all accept that up to now we have been consistently turning a blind eye so that animal feed can be produced cheaply and so that meat can be produced cheaply, then we will still be encouraging firms to dump all kinds of waste, anything that can no longer be recycled in any other way, in animal feed. That is why we need to have quality requirements for animal feeds. We need to have other controls on animal protein. And in our role as consumers, we ourselves also need to consider what we are consuming and how, and what we are willing to pay for products."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples