Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-306"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Additives in animal nutrition2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021120.9.3-306"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-20-Speech-3-3072
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the proposal for a directive on additives for use in animal nutrition should be commended as a significant step forward for human health, animal health and the environment. It puts right an unacceptable situation. It is clearly not a complete solution, but is a step in the right direction as it proposes a ban on the use of antibiotics as additives in animal feed. I would like to remind you that in addition to killing bacteria that cause infectious diseases, antibiotics have another property discovered long ago. In the 1940s, it was found that antibiotics improve the capacity of animals to convert their food, so increasing the rate of growth of the animal. This means that when battery chickens receive antibiotics in their feed, they can reach a weight of 2.3 kilograms in seven weeks. At seven weeks, chickens who consume antibiotics in their feed are ready for slaughter, whereas those which do not, weigh barely one kilogram. It actually takes twice as long for these chickens to reach slaughter weight. The economic incentive for using antibiotics as a feed additive is obvious. The practice of adding antibiotics in lower than therapeutic doses to the feed of farm animals became widespread with the development of intensive farming. This use was officially justified by the fact that, as well as resulting in faster growth, antibiotics protect animals from infectious diseases. It must be understood that the conditions in which animals are reared play an important role in the spread of infectious diseases. The practice was legalised in 1970 by Directive 70/524 EEC which at the time authorised the use of thirteen antibiotics as additives. We have however been aware of a potentially harmful consequence of the over–use of antibiotics since the 1950s. The over–use of antibiotics can produce resistant bacteria which render the antibiotic concerned ineffective. Further work over the years confirmed these findings. I recall that in 1985 the Swedish Parliament voted to ban the use of antibiotics as feed additives for this very reason, in other words, 17 years before the Commission’s proposal! Even though it is unfortunate that we have waited so long, we must welcome the fact that the Commission has now decided to intervene on this issue. I agree with Mr Kindermann that we must also ban the use of coccidiostats as feed additives and only permit their use as medicines."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph