Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-10-Speech-1-061-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120910.22.1-061-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we had been this timid during the BSE crisis fifteen years ago, when I was the chair of a committee, we would not have safe beef on which we can now rely. Fifteen years ago, it was self-evident that we would introduce an animal passport and that two ear tags would be mandatory.
Today, we are once again hesitant. Do we really need crises in order to make the right decisions? The rapporteur said that this is not about public health, but that is precisely what this is about. This is about health policy, it is about public health. I admit that the introduction of a mandatory electronic identification system does, of course, involve a certain amount of expenditure and effort. I therefore proposed in committee that we should put forward a transitional period of 10 years. Even that, however, was too much for the majority of the committee. Do you want to face your electors earnestly and tell them that you take public health seriously? Not a single farmer would say that they could not achieve this given ten years.
Let us turn now to voluntary labelling. In this connection, we have repeatedly said that what we want to do is to urge farmers to connect better with consumers and provide information in which consumers are interested. How old are the animals? How have they lived? How have they been fed? How were they reared? We are providing this option with the voluntary system. It is used in every Member State. The rapporteur is now proposing that we should remove the essential characteristics that provide conditions for how the system is to be operated. That would mean that there would be a system, but no conditions within it. Who seriously believes that something like that can actually work? Not a single national authority would be able to monitor these elements. No one can manage that. In other words, the aim is to destroy an existing system.
Fortunately, the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – and the rapporteur must represent that committee here, after all – decided to retain this voluntary system as it is. I would like to ask all my fellow Members to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by that committee when we vote on this tomorrow.
Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe, however, that we could consider whether we can simplify this system from an administrative point of view. Then, however, we would have to simplify the system and remove the administrative obstacles and hurdles. We need to help the authorities, but the way proposed here is the wrong way to go. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you urgently, including in the interests of the consumers and of the farmers of the European Union, to follow the lead of the decisions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety when it comes to voluntary labelling."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples