Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-304"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.9.3-304"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of animal nutrition has become something of a regular feature on this House's agenda. Over recent years, we have played a very successful part in shaping EU legislation on animal feedingstuffs. Let me remind you of some examples: the open declaration of feed ingredients, the establishment of a positive list, and the new regulations on the production and use of meal made from meat. Today, we are embarking on a new round which focusses on feed additives. The Group of the Party of European Socialists supports much of what the rapporteur has just mentioned, such as the ban on antibiotics, etc. She has done sterling work, and has been receptive to many of our proposals. I would like to express my sincere thanks to her for that. Overall, then, we are pleased with the report which was voted on in committee.
There are two point which should be corrected, however, and which I would like to explain as follows. Coccidiostats and histomonostats should not be authorised for use as feed additives; instead, they should be authorised, in the long term, as veterinary medicinal drugs. We must be consistent here. If we impose a general ban on antibiotics in animal nutrition, we cannot immediately make an exception for one product category. This cannot be justified to consumers.
As regards coccidiostats, these must be subject to controlled use as prescribed by a veterinary surgeon who is familiar with the situation in the farm concerned and can respond appropriately. Otherwise, the general preventive use of these products, which are also antibiotics, could conceal possible hygiene problems on the farms. I strenuously refute any accusations that I am trying to generate a new source of income for veterinary surgeons. We have tabled amendments on this issue, and I would ask you to support them.
My second point relates to the duration of authorisation. We support authorisation for an unlimited period, provided that this does not impact on product safety. A re-evaluation of the additives should therefore be carried out every ten years, taking account of new scientific information and research data. This ensures reliability for the applicant, on the one hand, and animal and consumer safety, on the other."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples