Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.4.2-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal on animal by-products involves strict separation into three categories. I would like to remind you that category 1 includes the risk material and is primarily covered by the regulation on TSEs recently adopted by Parliament for the third time. Some proposed amendments contradict the regulation on TSEs which we have recently adopted.
Amendment No 23 exempts, for example, sheep and goats which have died of natural causes from the specification risk material. This clearly conflicts with the regulation on TSEs and is probably impossible in practice.
I have chosen to support the amendments on control of household waste in terms of the risks of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever submitted by the Green Group, i.e. Amendments Nos 102 and 103. It is good if we obtain clear rules, but these amendments might not properly resolve the main question in this context, namely the clash in terms of cannibalism and household waste.
I will end – not before time – by thanking the Commission and the Council’s working party for a very constructive, creative and valuable dialogue and my shadow rapporteurs for their assistance and help.
Category 1 covers risk material. Category 2 includes animals which have died a natural death. The third category includes material classified as by-products from animals slaughtered which passed the health inspection.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has chosen, as I myself have, to support the approach of the Commission and attempted to improve the practical regulatory framework and, above all, to make it more stringent, for the principles in this report are simple but things are considerably more difficult in practice. Implementation in particular will be difficult. As such, we require strict separation of the material from the three categories. There is also a need for strict separation of facilities, transport routes, etc. I can add that it is likely that, in future legislation, we will have to require the same separation of feed plants or lines for different types of feed.
It is important to mention that all material in categories 1 and 2 is to be marked with an indelible dye and odorant so that they cannot, either deliberately or through negligence, re-enter the feed production chain, for example. Naturally, the same rules which apply to domestic production are also to apply to export, re-export and import.
Together with the committee, I am very pleased that ‘cannibalism’ has been put a stop to in this way. This means that pigs can no longer be fed on their fellow species. However, I would ask you to note that the total ban on feeding ruminants on all forms of animal protein remains and is regulated in the regulation on TSEs
here. Personally, I am also very pleased to see that, from today onwards, fat from category 2 may only be used as fertiliser or ideally as fuel oil. In my opinion, it is vital that, at some point, we break the enrichment of heavy metals, PCBs and dioxins.
It is now my hope that Parliament will adopt these principles laid down by a strong majority. I must therefore turn to Amendment No 100 from the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats. This proposal, which was presented in the committee and voted down, seeks to permanently ban all meat and bone meal, with the exception of fish meal, in all animal feed. I would ask you to think this through. We know the catastrophe we caused when we turned ruminants into omnivores. Even now we can see problems in attempting to turn omnivores into vegetarians. I appeal for humility in the face of nature’s own system. We must not manipulate it a second time. Instead, a better way is to vote in favour of the proposal from the Green Group, Amendment No 64, which enjoins Member States to submit, before 1 February 2003, a report on the uniform implementation of the provisions laid down in this new regulation. After that, we will discuss lifting the temporary ban on meat and bone meal which is now in force.
I would also like you to vote against Amendments Nos 22 and 33. These would in fact sabotage part of the categorisation and complicate it. There is no great need to test whether a chicken dead of natural causes should be placed in category 2 instead of category 1.
When it comes to new technology, I strongly advocate trying new technology, never preventing development. I therefore submitted a proposal myself, which was adopted by the committee and which permits the use of new methods approved by the scientific committees. This Amendment No 43 opens up every opportunity for different types of new technology once we obtain them and once they are approved. I would therefore like to see us voting against Amendments Nos 20, 25, 26, 35 and 43 where these address a particular new technology, namely alkaline hydrolysis. This may be an excellent technique, but I do not think it should be included five times in a regulation. That would be legal overkill, to put it mildly
I also appeal to you to vote against Amendment No 36, as this is far too narrow compared with the Commission’s original proposal. As the text is now worded, serious zoonoses, i.e. diseases which affect both animals and people, would be exempt from this legislation. In other words, it would only concern animal diseases. This means that serious infectious diseases such as salmonella, listeria and even tuberculosis, would be exempt from this regulation. This would be devastating for public health."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples