Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.3.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Paulsen’s report on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition deals with an important subject, which, like all important subjects, is highly controversial. Irrespective of whether we eventually reach agreement, let me take this opportunity to thank all of the honourable Members whose constructive preparatory work has brought us to the present point in this discussion. Speaking for my group today as the draftsperson of the dissenting opinion in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I should like to make five points.
Firstly, the new proposal which was introduced by the Commission in December 1999 and which forms the basis of Mrs Paulsen's report seeks to change the system completely less than a year after the introduction of the existing directive in April 1999. The report abandons the distinction between feedstuffs, feed materials and feed additives. The new directive that will be put to the vote today does not materially alter the quality of animal feed in any way, since the proposed limit values applicable to the final feed product are the same as those in the present directive. The same is true of dioxin. What we are discussing so fastidiously is not going to be changed here. Moreover, in my eyes a crime is a crime!
Secondly, for farmers, who are, of course, the producers of primary feed materials, there will in fact be a change, because in future they will have to destroy considerably higher percentages of their feed materials. What we want is a comprehensive, prudent and practicable arrangement for all concerned. The question whether the text we are now being asked to adopt is appropriate, especially from a food safety or macroeconomic point of view, is extremely debatable. I believe it is not. From my own conversations, however, I know that I am not speaking for a majority of the House on this particular point. That being the case, it is important at the present juncture to make emphatically clear that compensation for these additional losses and shortfalls suffered by farmers, to which Mrs Paulsen rightly referred, is essential, that we must create directives to regulate this and that we must reflect on how we should deal with these things at the WTO negotiations and how we should regard imported products which contain such undesirable substances."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples