Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-05-Speech-4-021"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090205.3.4-021"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in the aftermath of the dioxin contamination in the Republic of Ireland which visited such losses on innocent producers and processors in Northern Ireland, we discussed new measures on the labelling of feedstuffs.
The obvious question for me is: would any of these proposals have saved my producers from their present losses? Sadly, the answer is ‘no’. They will, of course, impose greater transparency which is, of itself, all to the good, but only in respect of EU feedstuffs fed to animals within the EU, not in respect of feed fed to animals whose meat we then import into the EU.
Providing maximum detail on the precise composition of feedstuffs is right and understandable, but we must not so undermine intellectual property rights as to make them meaningless. In that respect, I have some residual fears on aspects of these proposals. Compound mixes are trade secrets built up over years of research and trial. They must be adequately protected.
I trust that the 15% margin in description precision will be enough. I, for one, do not want to see feed mills in my constituency, which have worked hard and invested heavily in producing premium product, being gazumped and their intellectual property rights raided by manufacturers operating in cheaper production areas, either within or outside the EU.
I trust this regulation will not be either misused or abused in that regard. Yes, farmers are entitled to maximum information on compound contents, but within the confines of preserving the viability and the future of the mills from which they buy."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples