Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-442"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100908.19.3-442"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Dalli, during the discussion about your Novel Food Regulation before the summer recess, we decided not to include the issue of cloned meat in this regulation, but instead to call on the Commission to adopt an additional regulation. Therefore, I welcome the fact that Mr Dalli is making proposals today concerning the direction in which this regulation should go. I see today’s discussion as the basis for the regulation which we expect the Commission to submit to us in November. For this reason, it is very important that we are having this discussion here today.
We are well aware that time is pressing and this has already been mentioned today on several occasions. For example, in the USA, at least 150 cloned cattle are being kept for breeding purposes. Then there were the events that took place in the United Kingdom during the summer recess. No one has yet clarified whether this was just a silly season story or whether there really is some truth in it. However, I would like to remind everyone of the reason why we called for the special regulation.
On the one hand, we said that it is not entirely clear whether cloned meat really is completely harmless. This is supported by the fact that only comparisons of the different materials have so far been carried out, in other words, comparisons of meat from non-cloned animals and meat from cloned animals. Therefore, we do not yet have proper proof, as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also said. We need to hold more tests and await the results.
However, we also mentioned a second aspect of the issue, which involves the ethical dimension and animal welfare. It is not correct to say that we have no rights in this area. The Treaty of Lisbon covers the question of animal welfare and we can cite the treaty in the case of transgressions or if animals are constantly put at risk. Of course, we need to clarify this and to obtain the corresponding proof if we are to speak out in favour of a ban. I believe that this is necessary.
If you go into a supermarket and look at the labelling on the joints of beef, you will not be able to prove that what is stated on the labels is correct. This means that it is possible to add information indicating that the meat is cloned to the labelling. We have a register for animals which allows us to track where an animal comes from without it being labelled. We can trace every detail right back to the animal’s ancestors. Therefore, we have the means readily available to prove whether meat comes from a cloned animal or from one that has not been cloned. As the saying goes, a person can disappear, but an animal cannot, because all its details are recorded.
We have the means and we should use them if we decide to allow cloned meat to be sold. It is possible to prove whether or not meat is cloned, but we need complete traceability and strict labelling in the interests of consumers. In addition, you must not forget the question of animal welfare. We believe that to be very, very important."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples