Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.4.2-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to discuss our proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on animal by-products not intended for human consumption. This proposal is the second major component in our defence barriers against BSE. The other is, of course, the regulation on TSEs, which enters into force on 1 July.
We agree to lay down public health requirements for incinerators which are not covered by the scope of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste. We can accept the introduction of the legal possibility of reviewing the authorised method of disposal following new scientific advice. We cannot accept adding a specific new technology, as this is unnecessary and in my view premature.
We accept the inclusion of catering waste in the scope of the regulation, but we must clarify that such waste is covered by the proposal only when destined to specific purposes in order to avoid duplication within environmental legislation. We can accept a definition of catering waste, on condition that it covers catering waste from household kitchens, in order to ensure consistency with forthcoming legislation on classical swine fever. We can accept classifying catering waste as Category 3 material, on condition that catering waste from international means of transport comes under the highest risk Category 1 and is destroyed as required by existing Community legislation.
We cannot accept the proposal to allow the continuation of swill-feeding using catering waste. First of all, this practice is not compatible with the prohibition of intra-species recycling and with the demand for full traceability of feed ingredients, both of which have been called for by Parliament. Secondly, the recent dioxin crisis and the current outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease adequately illustrate why the continuation of this feeding practice is not appropriate.
We cannot accept the exclusion of manure produced on farm from the scope of the proposal as this would reduce health protection. We cannot limit the spreading of manure only in cases where it is suspected of disseminating an OIE List A disease, as certain Member States have additional eradication measures for diseases not included in that list, such as salmonella. We can agree to clarify that a harmonised health certificate for the trade of manure shall be laid down by commitology. The request to annex this certificate to the regulation is superfluous and therefore unacceptable. We accept the proposal to spell out the possibility of authorising equivalent processing treatments for manure following scientific advice, which in any case is not prevented by the Commission proposal. However, it is premature and therefore not acceptable to make reference to a concordance table before the evaluation by the Scientific Committee.
We cannot accept the proposed inclusion of additional animal by-products in the Category 1. It is excessive, unnecessary and will create confusion with existing legislation, in particular with the TSE regulation, without making a real contribution to increased safety. Testing for BSE is properly the competence of the TSE regulation and I believe it deals quite adequately with this. Furthermore, it is not practical to test all animals for all known diseases. It is unrealistic. Animals which die on farm are in any case excluded from the food and feed chain.
The net result of these amendments would be to prohibit the use of an important volume of animal by-products in bio-gas and composting. It is proposed to require the use of pressure-cooking standards for animal by-products even if the resulting material is incinerated. For reason of consistency with the TSE regulation, we can accept that this process be used before incineration if required by the national competent authority. This would allow Member States to require this process when, for example, a long period of storage is needed before incineration. We note that many other Parliament amendments would maintain this flexibility.
We cannot accept a ban on the use of rendered fats from Category 2 material for the production of fat derivatives for the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry. We cannot accept restrictions on the importation of ruminant products due to a TSE risk, as such restrictions are laid down by the TSE regulation. Furthermore, the safety of ruminant fats is currently under revision by the Scientific Steering Committee.
We can agree to an earlier date of entry into force of the regulation and welcome the proposal that Member States forward a report to the Commission on the implementation of the regulation.
I cannot accept the exclusion of dead sheep and goats from the definition of specified risk material, as this is not in line with the TSE regulation. I cannot accept the exclusion of solid dung and composting from the prohibition on spreading material on pasture land, because manure in any form is already excluded by this prohibition and there is no justification for excluding compost from a general policy on the spreading of material on pasture land.
We can accept the principle of prohibiting the exportation of Category 1 and Category 2 material. We can agree to the principle of refrigeration of raw Category 3 material. We can accept adding products which failed import checks to Category 3 material. However, for reasons of consistency with the annex and existing Community legislation, we would clarify that this shall apply unless the products are redispatched or their importation is accepted under restrictions laid down under Community legislation.
I cannot overemphasise the importance of this proposal. We are faced with a very stark choice. Over 16 million tonnes of animal by-products not intended for human consumption are produced each year in the EU. These 16 million tonnes do not disappear into thin air. They have to be disposed of and processed. This can be done in a manner which is safe, economic and effective for health and the environment, or it can be done in an unregulated manner, which puts public health and the environment at risk. All Community institutions would be collectively responsible if we did not insist on the first method of disposal. That is exactly what the Commission proposed in October 2000: a framework which will allow these 16 million tonnes to be processed safely and effectively.
We cannot accept the introduction of a permanent ban on meat and bone meal in feed, as the feed ban comes under the competence of the recently adopted TSE regulation. In fact, pending the adoption and implementation of this proposal, I am proposing an extension of the current total feed ban under the legal provisions of the TSE regulation.
In addition I believe that animal proteins produced in accordance with this present proposal can be used safely to feed animals other than ruminants. The permanent ban on feeding animal proteins to animals other than ruminants is not scientifically justified. It could be challenged in the WTO and would have enormous environmental and economic consequences.
We cannot accept a ban on certain local feeding practices as this would seriously disrupt existing national schemes for the protection of endangered species. The conditions established by the proposal to control this feeding practice are stricter than the current one and are in line with the Commission's inspectors' recommendation.
In conclusion, the Commission welcomes the report and the many useful and constructive amendments contained therein. Mr President, following your earlier suggestion, I propose to circulate the amendments in summary form.
This proposal is linked very closely with the issue of BSE. The reason is obvious. A significant part of the animal by-products of which we speak is specified risk material. It is essential that these products in particular are collected, processed and destroyed effectively. The proposal will achieve this objective.
I have been hugely encouraged by the very constructive approach of Parliament to this proposal. There has been a very healthy discussion which has focused on improving the text. I am satisfied that the emerging text gives overriding priority to the need to protect public health and the environment. And it does so in a manner which can work. When this regulation enters into force, we will have a system that is state of the art.
I would like to single out the role played by your rapporteur, Mrs Paulsen, who made enormous efforts to bring this proposal to this stage so quickly. Due to her and your efforts, I am in a position today to agree to the spirit and principles of the vast majority of your amendments, subject to some editorial changes. I shall also briefly mention the proposal for a directive amending Directives 90/425 and 92/118. Clearly time does not allow me to discuss in detail the Commission's position on all the amendments, so I will focus on the key issues.
First of all, we can accept amendments on recitals which match provisions in the text and those which highlight the historical background, including previous Parliament resolutions on the safety of animal feed. I agree to remove the reference to increasing productivity in a recital, but the original reference to the Treaty should be retained. However, we must reject amendments introducing recitals which are not matched by provisions in the text, or deleting recitals referring to the text, as this is contrary to correct legal practice.
I cannot accept bringing genetic material in the scope of the proposal, although I would clarify that it covers only the disposal of genetic material when it is no longer needed for reproductive purposes. I can support amendments aimed at extending the prohibition of intra-species recycling to animal species other than ruminants; for these species cannibalism has been prohibited since 1994. As we learned from the development of the BSE epidemic, the practice of intra-species recycling may increase the risk of recycling potential infectivity due to the absence of a species barrier.
I accept the introduction of additional requirements to improve the traceability of products. However, the proposed requirements on the marking of unprocessed Category 1 material can be accepted only in the case of specified risk material. The proposed marking of unprocessed Category 2 material, including manure, cannot be accepted for the same reasons. Furthermore the olfactory and denaturing marking can be accepted only in principle, as at this stage we have not yet identified an appropriate and safe marker that has these qualities. I would like to note that adding an olfactory marker to manure may be, to put it mildly, a little superfluous. However we understand your general concern and will bear it in mind for the future. The Commission will not hesitate to establish such additional rules on marking should this be necessary.
We accept the need to introduce additional and stricter requirements to avoid cross-contamination. The Commission proposal already establishes a complete separation during collection and transport of animal waste and a complete separation of plants dedicated to feed production. We can accept a derogation for burial and burning of cadavers and specified risk materials in remote areas and in case of outbreaks of serious transmissible diseases, because of the danger of propagating health risks or because of a lack of disposal capacity. We particularly welcome the conditions suggested to prevent abuse of this derogation. Two different definitions of remote areas are proposed. We could accept a combination of both."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples