Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-01-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010201.3.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, by failing to take the necessary action in good time, the European Union is largely responsible for the extent of the BSE crisis. The evidence is overwhelming: an average 27% drop in consumption and an ever-increasing number of export embargoes. In France alone, the beef and dairy industries account for 400 000 jobs. Victims of falling exchange rates and dwindling consumption, cattle farmers are in a desperate plight and face the threat of bankruptcy. They can no longer afford to keep livestock on their farms. Milk producers are exceeding their quotas. Consumers, worried and disorientated, no longer know what to buy. Abattoirs, condemned to inactivity, cannot stock carcasses pending the results of tests, because the results are taking too long to come through, since staff are not trained to deal with this new situation and laboratories still await official registration as test centres. Today there are only post mortem examinations. What has happened to the research into blood tests? According to Commissioner Byrne, a patent application is pending. Are we doing all we can to support research, especially public research? The systematic slaughter of herds is expensive and ruins farmers’ selective breeding programmes. Now that screening tests are compulsory, is it necessary to go on destroying healthy animals or healthy parts of animals? This systematic destruction also disposes of healthy carriers of the disease. Would it not be wise to keep part of this stock – in total isolation, of course – for research purposes? As for fighting bulls, which are considered to be at risk and are therefore subject to compulsory destruction like all other cattle that die outside abattoirs, even though there is a market for their meat, it cannot withstand being frozen for the time it takes to obtain the result of the tests and therefore ceases to be fit for consumption.
The ban on meat and bone meal was ultimately dictated by the fact that it was impossible to trace the sources of the meat and bone input. How should the meal be stored, burned and replaced? Sites are selected by order of the public authorities without any consultation of the local populations, environmental-impact studies or risk assessments. In order to comply with public health requirements, burning must be carried out in special facilities, and there are not yet enough of these. In spite of a protein deficit, the Member States dependent on imports of oil-protein crops cannot give assurances that the protein in their feed does not come from genetically modified crops. Yet Europe continues to take farmland out of production under the set-aside scheme. For this reason, it is becoming a matter of urgency to reopen talks within the WTO and to rethink the Blair House agreements. Europe must not reduce its support for livestock farmers, as it seems intent upon doing, by abolishing the premium for suckling cows or reducing cattle quotas, etc.
Even though farmers are prepared to make strenuous efforts in order to guarantee traceability and high-quality produce, Europe must not demand even greater sacrifices of them, as the Agriculture Council did at its last meeting. On the contrary, Europe must support its farmers, even if it means paying direct grant aid. An exceptional situation calls for exceptional measures. The price of public health is well beyond the means of the agricultural budget alone. Part of the cost of guaranteeing food safety and restoring consumer confidence should therefore be charged to the general budget."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples