Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-05-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090205.3.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what is good about animals is that the years go by and the problems remain the same. For example, we always mention jaw traps when talking about wild animals, and the question of transport, breeding and feed always arises in relation to farm animals. Animal feed is a classic case; it is a mishmash, a load of rubbish. Antibiotics, clenbuterol, growth hormones, even the remains of other animals, are used, and this is what the United Kingdom’s contaminated feed problem from the 1990s was all about.
However, today we are told that the junk-food era is over. There has been a 2002 directive and a 2005 Court of Justice ruling and, now, there is the desire to reconcile the market and profit – which is referred to as intellectual property – with consumer safety.
Thus, here we find ourselves today armed with a regulation. Using the classic tool of labelling, all the components are going to be indicated, in descending order of weight, and there will also be an open declaration, an Annex III and a tolerance of +/-15%. Moreover, the most inquisitive among us will even be able to request the exact composition.
Only two big questions remain. The first concerns imported animals which have not been labelled. Mr Parish is here; he has taken a great interest in animals arriving from Brazil, which are not marked and which have been fed clenbuterol. When it comes to the safety of these animals, we do not know a great deal.
And then there remains the big question of imported feed, namely raw materials that have been arriving from the American continent since the 1960s. In the 1960s, this came in the form of corn gluten feed – molasses, oilseed residues – and, today, it is in the form of transgenic soya from Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, and transgenic maize from Canada and the United States. And this, dare I say it, because people are against local GMOs, but not immigrant GMOs.
The fact is, we are talking here about two-thirds of the feed of our herds, and that is a real health issue. The single issue of European health security is obscuring the wider issue of global health risks, due to the Uruguay Round agreement and the Blair House agreement, which oblige us to import our oilseeds to feed two-thirds of our herds."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples