Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.4.3-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and their rapporteurs, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mrs Roth-Behrendt, for having examined the Commission proposal and delivered their opinion on it and to the Members of Parliament who have spoken this morning and have warmly welcomed these proposals. I am pleased about that.
As stressed in the report by these two committees, this proposal was initiated by the European Parliament out of a concern to improve both traceability and the provision of information through the labelling of compound-feeding stuffs. The Commission proposal does not enjoy the unanimous support of all parties concerned. In the Council, a very substantial majority of Member States is opposed to the introduction of an obligation to systematically indicate on labels the precise composition of the compound feedingstuffs intended for productive livestock.
If a compromise were to be reached, it would be highly desirable to give stock farmers the opportunity to obtain all the information they desire on the composition of the feedingstuffs used to feed their animals. In my opinion, this is a legitimate right to information which must be satisfied.
As far as the amendments presented are concerned, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5 that improve the Commission proposal. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 2 calling on the Commission to present, forthwith, a proposal setting out an exhaustive list of the materials authorised for feeding animals. I must stress that the Commission is in no way opposed to the actual principle of drawing up an exhaustive list of materials. The Commission is convinced of the usefulness of a positive list. In this connection, I would like to quote from the White Paper on Food Safety which states "The materials which may or may not used in animal feed production, including animal by-products, need to be clearly defined." A positive list of feed materials would give the clearest response to the current lack of definition of feed materials, however, it goes on to state: "This task is complex and time-consuming. In the short term, the current negative list needs to be rapidly expanded and the Commission is committed to working towards a positive list over the medium term."
Regarding the timetable, there is no way that a proposal on a positive list of materials can be envisaged before the end of 2002. The procedure whereby this can be done is the amendment of 1996/25 to convert the current non-exhaustive list of feed materials into an exhaustive positive list. This can be done by codecision under Article 152. Any updating of that list would be accomplished by comitology.
I hope that Parliament will understand that the Commission cannot agree to give commitments on timescales which cannot be reasonably kept. Finally, in relation to Amendment No 6, this amendment is not acceptable as it falls outside the scope of this directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples