Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-04-Speech-4-100"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031204.6.4-100"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Although I do not have any major problems with most of the amendments adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I voted against this report, because some amendments go beyond the scope of this directive. This applies, in particular, to the recital which proposes a timetable for defining what might be the specific rules governing ‘organic’ winegrowing. The product definition proposed is comparable with that of a registered designation of origin.
We can, of course, recognise the legitimacy of wine produced from organically grown grapes. However, to go on from there to attempt to define an ‘organic’ wine, for which the winemaking process is no different from the traditional process used to produce a wine with a registered designation of origin, would be to ignore the fact that the ‘registered designation of origin’ concept is based on areas of land designated according to their soils, and production conditions defined on the basis of local customs, whereas ‘organic’ wines can be produced using grapes from vineyards which are not authorised to use a registered designation of origin.
Moreover, to accept the image of two types of wine production would give the illusion that one was better than the other, thereby disregarding the fact that traditional winegrowing provides all the quality guarantees necessary for consumer confidence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples