Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-245"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number|
"Mr President, I would also like to concentrate on this issue of category of animal labelling. The original proposal called for labelling as steer, heifer or young bull, which would be sexual discrimination. But recently I was staggered when the Commission – just as Mrs Doyle has said – reported it had not finally decided on the precise terminology! This effectively means they are asking Parliament to give them a blank cheque to determine what category of animal means after we have voted on whether or not to include it. This is very sloppy, very amateur and unacceptable as a way to treat this House. It is not even a food safety issue. It is extra bureaucracy and red tape – which is probably why my own government in the UK has supported it. But it is not in the interests of consumers, nor of the industry and, specifically, it is not in the interest of small abattoirs which would have the greatest difficulty in dealing with it. I therefore ask the House to support the deletion of category of animal as a compulsory labelling requirement, just as it did on the first reading. If countries wish to include it voluntarily that is a matter for them. Assuming we vote for deletion, I would ask the Commission to take note that we shall not be moved on this issue. So they know what they have to do. Finally I ask the Commission and the Council to take note that we welcome the principle of labelling beef by country of origin and that we call on the French presidency to set an example by making an immediate commitment to accept all beef so labelled from EU countries and let the consumer decide."@en1
substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples