Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.3.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Whitehead, on this report, which was far from straightforward, and Mr Bowis, who has done great work on the preliminary task of the report on the White Paper.
The report was not straightforward because, although the Commission’s proposal is a good starting document and is full of good intentions, in addition to the enormous number of amendments tabled in it, it takes the wrong approach and contains many ambiguities.
For example, Article 5 should clearly define the objectives of food legislation and limit them to the protection of public and consumer health and food safety throughout the food chain, without hindering the free movement of agri-food products within the Community, as well as ensuring the competitiveness of the European agri-food industry within international markets.
Other objectives, such as the protection of the environment and the protection and welfare of animals and plants, are all very laudable, Commissioner, but if they do not affect food safety, there is other legislation which deals with them or which can potentially deal with them. We have just voted, for example, under the urgent procedure, on the welfare of pigs, with the sole objective of increasing the legislative initiatives of the Swedish Presidency.
The Authority’s work should focus on risk assessment and scientific advice, which is no small task of course.
Commissioner, you have said on many occasions that the new rapid alert system is part of crisis management, and that it would be the responsibility of the Commission. However, in its proposal, the Commission proposes that the Authority should have this responsibility, in recital 35, in Article 21(2), in Article 22(h), in Article 34 and in Article 49.
With regard to risk assessment, it should be of a scientific and independent nature. This is the true task of the future Food Authority and I am pleased that Amendment No 123 gives priority to its scientific opinions.
As for the communication of risk, this should be done by experts, because a communication which is inappropriate for public opinion may create social alarm, as has already happened, and cause significant losses and economic disasters for agri-food sectors throughout the European Union.
Lastly, I hope that the future decision on the headquarters of the European Food Authority will be preceded by a serious debate between our institutions and that it will finally be reached by co-decision."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples