Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-01-Speech-4-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010201.3.4-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, may I first of all thank all the Members who made such valuable contributions to this debate, all of which have been very carefully noted. I would like to say by way of a preliminary reply to what has been said, that those who spoke on the question of consumer confidence are putting their finger on an issue that is of particular importance, in addition to the issues that we are addressing today relating to public health.
The specific issue of the number of inspections will be addressed in the report that I am requesting Member States to furnish me with. You will remember that I wrote to Member States on 4 January including an annex asking for detailed information. We have a lot of that information now in response to that letter and we will obviously be in contact with Members States all the time seeking further information and making sure that everything is kept under review.
References were made to the reform of the CAP. This is largely a matter for my colleague Franz Fischler, but Member States are not yet fully availing of the opportunities to provide for what might loosely described as a greener CAP. In this context I should say that Franz Fischler and I have established a joint committee with our services to look into this very issue and to see to what extent adjustments need to be made so that we can achieve a situation whereby food is produced by more natural methods. That is not to say that we are going to abandon the idea of the industrial production of food. We cannot do that.
That is a knee-jerk reaction that does not respond to the needs of the consumer. We must produce a lot of food to feed people and that must be properly addressed as well. But there is a desire from consumers that we should address the question of the natural production of food. I am not fully convinced that has been fully addressed in the past and after my discussions with Franz Fischler we are now going to look at this more carefully.
Somebody made reference to the fact of the CAP supports being more focussed on large farmers than on small farmers. I am not necessarily convinced that is the case, but there does seem to be some evidence to that effect and that is another issue that will obviously have to be addressed as well.
My distinguished predecessor Ms Bonino had something to say on the subject of enforcement. Of course, enforcement of measures is a key issue. The Food and Veterinary Office has a key role to play. Reports of the implementation measures will also oblige Member States to be very careful.
You made very relevant comments on fats also. It is not just a question of banning them. Animals have to have fat in their diet. The issue is where is this fat going to come from and are these fat sources safe. The opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee might need clarification on this particular aspect. There was considerable discussion in the Council last Monday on this issue. The conclusions refer to the fact that ruminant fat will have to be pressure cooked in the manner that we are all familiar with, but in addition a view was expressed that perhaps the time had come for the removal of animal fats from ruminant feed and that is an issue that is going to be considered. In considering that issue, you must ask what are the alternatives: vegetable fats, soyas, someone mentioned genetically modified substances. There are many complex issues which have to be addressed but I do not want to delay bringing forward the appropriate proposal for the pressure cooking of ruminant fat in the meantime. I should say in the context of the Blair House Agreement, my colleague, Franz Fischler is well aware of the demands of farmers to renegotiate the Blair House Agreement.
A number of you made reference to budgetary considerations and I must say that the Berlin ceilings have been reached. Any increase in budget must now be agreed unanimously by all Member States. Someone also made reference to the fact that some Member States are increasing their own taxation, increasing VAT to pay for this. That is a matter for each individual Member States. The Commission has no competence to levy VAT at the point of sale of any products, and that includes agricultural products.
Reference is also made to distortions of competition and we are faced with a crisis here. We do not have the luxury to harmonise all national measures before putting in place essential health protection measures. We must proceed with that and at the same time if the measures that we are putting in place require adjustment or fine-tuning to eliminate competition distortions then we must do that.
Others made reference to the need to ensure that we have harmonised measures throughout the European Union and I fully agree with that. I have said that on a number of occasions. I do believe that consumer confidence is undermined if consumers see different responses in different Member States to the same perceived risk. That undermines consumer confidence. I have said that on a number of occasions and that message has got through. I detected a mood in the Council last Monday that ministers accepted the proposition that we have to abandon unilateral measures in individual Member States and go forward with the measures that address the problem on a Europe-wide basis.
May I draw your attention to one particular aspect of public confidence that a number of you, in particular Mr Whitehead, referred to. Sometimes it depends to a very large extent on where Member States are in the cycle of BSE as to the effect on public confidence. Public health issues are crucially important but I want to address the consumer confidence aspect for a moment before I go on to the public health aspects.
I should have also mentioned earlier when I addressed the question of testing that live tests are not available yet. But we are carrying out a considerable amount of research in relation to this and a considerable amount of money is being spent on this. There is some is hope on the horizon in respect of live tests but nothing is absolutely clear as yet and I would not like to raise expectations or hopes in that regard.
Mrs Grossetête made reference to the operation of the CAP and I do not disagree with anything she said about its operation and how it affects large farmers, small farmers and so on. Can we continue for example with the situation where 45% of aids are paid for arable crops, a sector which is very intensive and which employs far fewer people than other principal sectors? This is an issue which must also be addressed.
Mr Posselt referred to fats and dioxin and the question of dioxin is under active consideration by my services and by myself at the moment as a result of the publication of the report of the Scientific Steering Committee within the last couple of weeks on this very issue. They are found in fat. It is practically impossible to filter out dioxins. They have to be tackled in other ways and we are working on this at the moment.
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf then asked me to address the question of a total ban of ruminant fats in animal feed. As I said earlier in this response, this is something that is being considered, was addressed by the Council last Monday and is being addressed in the context of further advice. There are control problems which make it difficult to ensure that segregation can be effective I will be happy to keep you informed of this issue as the discussion evolves.
Someone asked the question as to how mechanically recovered meat is going to be dealt with. Well I have say that it is going to be included in the definition of an SRM. So we extend the definition of SRM to include mechanically recovered meat which then has to be disposed of in the way that the law requires. That will be done in a manner consistent with the legislation as it currently stands.
Mr Whitehead rightly observed that in the UK the level of consumer confidence is high. The consumption of beef in the UK is higher than it was before 1996. Why is that the case? What lessons can we draw for consumer confidence from that? I believe it is because people see that the incidence of BSE in the UK is falling despite the fact that the number of cases is still the highest in the European Union by some considerable distance. So why are consumers relaxed about it to the extent that they are now consuming beef more than they were before 1996? I believe it is because they realise that the scientific advice had been correct; that the lawmakers have responded correctly and put safety measures in place and that the public authorities in the UK properly implemented that legislation and the consequence is that we have a falling incidence of BSE. So consumers have concluded from that: somebody is in charge, they are doing something about it, they appear to know what they are doing because the incidence is falling. Therefore their confidence rises and they consume beef.
That feeling has to be achieved in the rest of Europe, but it will take time because consumers do not have that sequence of events in their minds in the rest of the European Union and we all know why: because a number of Member States who declared themselves to be free of BSE within a very short space of time after making the declaration had to then admit that there was BSE in that Member State. That quite obviously provoked an immediate reaction in consumer confidence because it says to consumers: the people in charge do not know what they are talking about and are not protecting me.
We do not want to make microbiologists out of consumers, but they must have the feeling that there is someone in charge, who knows what they are doing and that what they are doing is effective in ensuring the protection of the consumer.
Let me now deal with some of the issues that you raised surrounding public health and the procedures that are needed. A number of you mentioned the question of testing. This was discussed in the Council last Monday. Testing at 30 months remains the norm, but will be kept under review. A huge number of tests under way will provide invaluable information within a very short period of time. We do not yet have enough tests and have not had them long enough to draw the appropriate conclusions. The statistical sample is not big enough, but when it is we will draw those conclusions. This will put us in a much better position to decide if further needs to be done.
In relation third countries, I can say that the SRM decision that we made some time ago applies to third countries and to imports from third countries from 1 April next. I have written to all third countries, alerted them to the Community measures and also advised them of the dangers of meat and bone meal. And my services will hold a conference shortly with third countries to press this point home further.
On the question of the vertebral column, of course the spinal cord must be removed and destroyed. Somebody mentioned earlier: Is this not enough – why do we have to remove the entire vertebral column if the danger resides in the spinal cord? Well, of course, that fails to take into account the need to address the question of the dangers that may be posed by the dorsal root ganglia and the removal of the vertebral column is specifically directed to that particular point. The removal of the vertebral column has been a requirement from 1 October. The question is how and where. As I explained there are complications and risks depending on where it is done, at the abattoir or in the butcher’s shop. We do not have enough time to go into detail in relation to this but I repeat what I said earlier that this is an issue that we will have to give very careful consideration to.
In respect of derogations, all Member States are currently carrying out tests on fallen and at-risk animals. This has been done on the basis of a random survey and this will help to revise the extent of the disease and give us more information. Then appropriate decisions can be made in the light of that situation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples