Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-15-Speech-3-360"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991215.14.3-360"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am not speaking on behalf of my group. I will vote with the majority of my group as I always do when they decide in a democratic way, but I am afraid I do not hold the same view as Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert. She made her case very well and she "threw the book at it". There was no conceivable argument against use or about the possible dangers that might occur that she did not invoke.
I find myself in the same position I found myself in many years ago when, on the initiative of Parliament, we banned natural hormones in the production of beef. We cost the European beef producers something like EUR 12 to 15 billion. In the meantime we did not enhance the safety of beef. We based our decision on political ideology rather than scientific investigation. The truth is that we ban American beef today because those hormones are there; but the truth is also that we know that, if we allowed the Americans to sell that beef into our market, at good value to our consumers, and if we were to put a label on it saying those hormones were there, they would still buy it. We know that. If we did not know that, why would we ban it? Let them come with their beef and if our consumers are so concerned they would not eat it anyway. But I do not believe they are so concerned.
It is the same with this product we propose to ban today. It is motivated by ideology rather than science. I believe we have a committee called the CVM. This committee for veterinary medical products which works within the European Medicines Evaluation Agency concluded that BST was safe, efficacious and of suitable quality. As such, they recommended that the product was suitable for release. They found that it did not affect the health of animals and that it was a natural product that did not affect the health of human beings.
We had another committee which gave a different point of view. My understanding is that it is the committee that gave the all-clear which is the committee on which we are relying. The only thing I want to say to the Commissioner is, could he please tell us which advice he is taking? Does he regard the committee whose advice he rejects as incompetent, unable to judge what is good for animals or dangerous for human health? Is he going to dismiss them and refuse to accept their advice or opinions any more?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples