Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.1.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease has had some important observations to make on the handling of last year's crisis. It has defined necessary strategies for the future, which also incorporate important suggestions for the legislative work on which we are about to embark. Taken as a whole, this is a good result for cooperation across group lines, for which I wish especially to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, and to the committee chairman, Mrs Redondo Jiménez.
There is no doubt that the primary and principal requirement in animal husbandry, to be adhered to in the areas of breeding, veterinary health, hygiene and prophylaxis, is that keeping a system of animal husbandry as self-contained as possible can make an important contribution to the protection of animals and also to their health and to that of human beings. I do believe, though, that public debate must also pay closer attention to the need for a distinction to be drawn between epizootics that endanger human health, and epidemics in which we are exclusively concerned with the health of animals and with their welfare and with the protection of valuable stocks.
Despite last year's crisis, let us not forget that it was in the control of epizootics hazardous to human health that past decades saw great successes achieved by dint of massive economic efforts on the part of all concerned. In fact, it was and still is absurd that the practice of vaccination against foot and mouth disease was stigmatised in the public eye at the same time as prophylactic measures, including treatment and vaccination of animals, are in daily use as part of the necessary repertoire of modern and responsible husbandry of many animal species. What are we supposed to do if the worst comes to the worst? Are we supposed to use protective emergency vaccination at the right moment? I would add flexibility in ring-vaccination.
Vaccination and testing should, in principle, be the primary option and should become standard practice. The trade restriction should be reduced to three months at most, as advised by the Scientific Committee as long ago as 1999. I will add one very important point, quite without reference to the forthcoming legislative work. If all the participants in the market could agree among themselves that infected farms that wanted, and were obliged, to avail themselves of these new tools, would not be left high and dry and would not end up enduring the scorn of the market if they used this strategy for the future, then we could save ourselves all this bother. I believe that what is needed is to achieve social consensus on the part of everyone involved. If that is done successfully, we will have been able to develop a strategy for the future capable of encompassing the protection and health of animals and enjoying acceptance on the part of society."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples