Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.15.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal put forward by the Commissioner is a good one, and, as he said in his speech, what we are dealing with here is an animal disease. Although a link has now been established with the possibility of its onward transmission, we must not allow ourselves to be panicked, and must not lose sight of the need for coordination between the veterinary and human spheres. We are dealing, after all, in the first instance with an animal disease, and so I find your manifest calm perfectly understandable, for the alternative is to run the risk of being swamped by day-to-day panic measures.
The good thing about the proposal is that it answers the question ‘to inoculate or not to inoculate?’ As you know – and I know all the more, having been in this House for longer – this has been the subject of debate over many years, the issue always being whether vaccination should be ongoing or, alternatively, prophylactic and in response to a specific occurrence of disease. Here in this House, we have always favoured the latter option, which is the one you are now proposing, but it has always been mentioned in the same breath with this fundamental question. The merit of your proposal, though, is that it separates the two.
It is for this reason that we endorse your proposal. There is no place either in this debate for such terms as ‘exterminate’ and ‘destroy’; we are dealing here with animals or with food, since it is animals that find their way into food products. The images presented to us over the past years – ranging from BSE to the diseases of poultry and swine via the cullings for foot-and-mouth disease – did Europe’s cultural credibility in the world’s eyes no good at all.
This is what leads me to believe that we are on the right track. The recommendation I would like to give you is that we should join with the Commission in discussing the issue of susceptibility, in relation to which we need to draw a distinction between the new breeds, which are intended for technical treatment and intensive rearing, and the regionally adapted breeds, that is to say those that live in the wild, some of which do indeed carry the virus without becoming clinically ill. The way they coexist needs to be organised, and so we must not fall into the trap of conducting the wrong debate, asking ourselves whether we should now do away with nature and have purely artificial and technical animal husbandry from now on. What is instead needed here is an exchange of views, not only with reference to the European situation, but also carried over into Asia.
It is there that we must provide technical aid and around the world that precautions must be taken if animals are to be kept healthy and people such as ourselves protected from the possibility of viruses altering and mutating to our own peril."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples