Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-16-Speech-4-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991216.2.4-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The beef labelling proposal is now before us as the labelling of GMOs was previously. Labelling has become the wonder tool. Through it, food safety will reign, the consumer will be protected and our Green colleagues will be satisfied at having ensured the survival of humanity, at least in terms of food …
In reality, labelling is one of those tricks so well loved by the leaders of Europe for calming people’s anxieties without actually solving any problems.
The labelling of GMOs should already be ringing alarm bells. We have no idea what to put on the labels. For example, do we put ‘product of biotechnologies’? If we put both ‘bio’ and ‘techno’ on a product’s label, consumers will fall over themselves to buy it.
This beef labelling proposal is therefore revealing the length of the Commission’s nose like a Community Pinocchio. This is the Brussels institution which, in 1997, decided on labelling for beef. Yet it is only now telling us that it is not technically capable of identifying the origin of bovine animals.
If the origin of bovine animals cannot be identified, how can we be sure that British beef presents no risk? We have to go one way or the other. If we know the provenance of bovine animals, then the lifting of the ban on British beef can be guaranteed and these animals can also be labelled. Yet, if we cannot label these animals because we do not know the origin of the meat, how can we then lift the ban? In other words, in the same week, France cannot be forced to lift its ban because the meat is traceable to a certain extent, while the request for labelling has been turned down on account of the technical impossibility of tracing the animals.
Who can actually believe that in the three years since 1997 we have not managed to label meat by indicating the origin of the animal? Despite the fact that we can already indicate the location of the slaughterhouse, we cannot give the provenance of the slaughtered animal.
The European Commission really does not care about consumers or the people. Brussels wants one thing only which is to ensure the free movement of products, capital, people and now contaminated British beef, at any price and without any obstacles. It is clear that labelling would result in the
boycott of British beef by consumers who do not want to compromise what remains of their brains after being fried by television news.
In essence, the slogan of the European Commission and of the whole concept of European construction is ‘profit before life’ and has been so since ‘the Europe of our brainless forefathers’. This is so obvious that the only label which might ensure safety would be one which read ‘official from Brussels’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples