Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-01-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010201.3.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I am pleased to have the opportunity to update Parliament on the most recent events in relation to BSE. Many of you were present when I spoke to the Agriculture Committee last week. Nonetheless, let me very briefly summarise the main events of recent weeks.
On the vertebral column, the Commission intention is to require the removal of the vertebral column where there are doubts over the effectiveness of the ban on meat and bone meal or whenever it cannot be demonstrated that animals are highly unlikely to be incubating BSE. This is in keeping with the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee.
Again, however there are important issues which need to be addressed. Where should the vertebral column be removed. If it is done at the abattoir, the most easily controlled location, there are implications for the storage and transport of beef carcasses. There are also risks of microbiological handling due to the increased handling involved. If instead removal is required at the butcher or retail outlet, there will be control problems in the recovery and the destruction of the bones. Similarly we need to be aware of the impact on consumers. A strict implementation of the Scientific Committee recommendations would require removal of vertebral column in animals aged over twelve months, as is currently the case in France. This will entail a ban on certain cuts of meat which are very popular – T-bone steaks and
for example.
Finally, which Member States should be exempt from the requirement? Should for example Member States like Austria, Sweden and Finland which continue to be BSE-free be exempt? These are all issues which the Commission is urgently considering and will address in its proposal.
I hope that these observations help to highlight the very complex issues which arise for what might appear at first sight to be a relatively simple measure. I am aware that the issue of controls is a concern. In this respect, the replies of Ministers to my letter of 4 January is reassuring. All Member States now insist that they are giving top priority to the secure implementation of BSE-related measures.
The Food and Veterinary Office will continue its programme of inspections in this regard. Finally, as a further incentive to improve compliance, I am considering a proposal in the very near future to require Member States to present monthly reports on their implementation of BSE control measures. The UK and Portugal are already required to provide such a report under the restriction measures on their exports of beef. I believe it has been invaluable in ensuring that controls are actively implemented. It should therefore, I believe, be replicated at Community level.
Important new measures came into effect on 1 January. These included the ban on meat and bone meal and the testing of all animals over 30 months destined for the food chain. The Commission wrote to Ministers for Agriculture on 4 January and asked for replies to an extensive questionnaire on the implementation of BSE-related measures. A working document summarising the responses was circulated to the Agriculture Council on Monday last. The opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on a number of BSE-related questions from the Commission was published on 17 January.
This set the agenda for the Agriculture Council on Monday. Following the usual, very lengthy discussions, Member States agreed on the following main orientations. A ban on mechanically recovered meat. The heat treatment of ruminant fats for inclusion in animal feed and the removal of the vertebral column, the backbone, from cattle. All three of these orientations follow directly from the previous discussions in the Council on the measures necessary to restore consumer confidence. They are also based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee.
I intend to present proposals within the next several days on all these issues to the Standing Veterinary Committee. They will, of course, result in further controls and potentially very significant costs. However Member States are prepared to accept virtually any measure to ensure that beef is now safe.
It is surely a matter of very great regret that this determination to tackle BSE has taken so long to emerge. Only seven months ago, the Commission failed to obtain a qualified majority to ban brain and spinal cord from food for human consumption and from animal feed. Equally, not all Member States implemented a ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal to ruminants in a satisfactory manner.
I would like now to turn to the proposals which the Commission will put to the Standing Veterinary Committee. Firstly, the one relating to mechanically recovered meat. The Commission will shortly consider a proposal to ban the use of mechanically recovered meat from all bones of ruminants of all ages. There is a case that material from bones other than the skull and vertebral column or from bones of young animals is safe. However, this involves important control problems and in the circumstances it is believed a total ban is necessary.
I might add that the use of mechanically recovered meat is increasingly repugnant to consumers. The processed meat industry has also called for this ban. The proposed measure should therefore be very welcome to both industry and consumers. On the question of rendered fat, the Commission will propose that ruminant fats to be included in ruminant feed should be pressure cooked in addition to the current requirement that they be ultrafiltrated. The Commission will equally act on the opinion that such ruminant fats should only be sourced from discrete adipose tissues when fed as milk replacers to calves.
We also need to reflect however if these changes can be properly enforced. For example, might there be control problems in distinguishing between different fats. If so, is there a need for a need for an outright ban on the use of ruminant fats in ruminant feed? If so, how do we ensure that the replacement fats are safe?
One final point on the issue of ruminant fats: it is surely incredible to the public that there should be higher standards relating to the use of ruminant fats in animal feed than applies to their use in food for human consumption. However that is the current situation and I intend to put this right."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"bistecca fiorentina"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples