Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.8.2-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, I notice that you have in any event made some moves towards a policy whereby infection and vaccination do not immediately lead to the removal from farms. This might be a first step, but in my own opinion, and that of my group, it is probably not sufficient. After all, we cannot deny that the current line of attack with regard to foot-and-mouth disease is unacceptable in real terms, and also from an economic, social and ethical point of view. The disease is continuing to rage out of control in Great Britain, which is leading to huge mass graves and enormous losses. In the Netherlands, twelve cases in a limited area have now led to the slaughter of almost 100 000 animals. In addition, social life has been disrupted to some extent over a large area, and other sectors, such as the medium-sized and small businesses, are suffering huge losses too. In my own country, we are now talking in terms of more than EUR 100 million. This also applies to the rural areas which are far removed from the affected area. For that reason, one could claim that the remedy, namely control by means of destruction, is worse than the disease itself. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following questions. Why are the Commission and Council not drawing from experience in South Africa and Argentina, among other countries, where outbreaks were successfully brought under control by means of comprehensive vaccination schemes? Why is the Commission not putting the report published in 1999 on the testing of vaccinated animals to good use?
Now that the enormity of the economic impact outside agriculture has become apparent, and there is – with good reason – widespread dissatisfaction among the public, who refuse to accept animal suffering, what is the Commission intending to do about this in the light of a thorough overhaul of the present non-vaccination policy? Does the Commission really condone the fact that for each animal infected with foot-and-mouth, tens of thousands of other, often still healthy, animals are being killed and destroyed? My question also falls within the scope of fighting BSE, for it is a well-known fact that we have a surplus of beef and veal. I would like the Commission to confirm, in plain language, that this approach of the foot-and-mouth outbreak is not related in any way to the BSE policy, where it is taken for granted that animals have to be removed from the farms and destroyed.
Mr President, on this basis, I believe I have to conclude that the current policy of controlling foot-and-mouth can, both ethically and economically, no longer be justified, and I eagerly await your answers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples