Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-351"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.15.2-351"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am delighted to respond to this debate on the two reports concerning zoonoses. This is an example of the implementation of the farm-to-fork approach highlighted in the White Paper on Food Safety. Our proposals are much more ambitious than the current directive. To ensure their successful implementation we need to allow sufficient time for Member States to meet these objectives.
I will start with the first of Mrs Paulsen’s reports, dealing with the directive on the monitoring of zoonotic agents. I can accept most of the amendments on this proposal. I will start with comitology. I welcome the acceptance of our proposal on the adoption of implementing measures. I can accept that, in addition to the Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, the Commission may be assisted, where appropriate, by the Committee on the Human Communicable Diseases Network. This may, however, lead to some delays in adopting implementing decisions.
I can also accept that certain basic criteria be transferred from the annexes to the articles. However, I do not accept that systematic prior consultation with the European Food Safety Authority is required for any transitional measure or before amending the annexes. Certain actions are administrative and do not require scientific expertise. I cannot therefore accept Amendment No 22.
Shortening the deadline for Member States to report on their monitoring activities from five months to three months is overly ambitious, considering the time needed to collect and compile data. Experience with the current reporting system shows that five months is already optimistic. I therefore reject the relevant part of Amendment No 20.
Systematic microbiological studies during investigation of food-borne outbreaks may not always be possible if the suspected food is no longer available. I cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 18.
I can support Amendments Nos 28 to 33, which enlarge the scope of the monitoring of anti-microbial resistance, and supersede Amendments Nos 15 and 21. The other amendments are either wholly or partly acceptable, subject to editorial amendments.
I come now to the regulation on the control of salmonella and other zoonotic agents. For the same reasons as on the proposed directive, I reject Amendment No 10 that shortens the deadline for Member States to report on the implementation of their control programmes. I also reject Amendment No 27 that requires consultation of the European Food Safety Authority systematically before taking transitional or implementing measures or amending the annexes.
An overriding long-term objective to avoid completely the presence of zoonotic agents in the feed and food chain is unrealistic. All reasonable efforts must be made to reduce the risk from zoonotic agents to a very low level. I cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 7.
Amendments Nos 1 and 16 would introduce food of plant origin into this control regulation, but this should be tackled under the food hygiene package, as Mr Whitehead said. I therefore reject Amendment Nos 1 and 16.
I would note that as I can accept Amendments Nos 1, 6 and 12 on the proposed directive the monitoring of zoonoses in products of plant origin would be covered. Amendments Nos 2 and 22 provide for additional guarantees not only for salmonella, but possibly for other zoonotic agents. Although additional guarantees may constitute an incentive for Member States, extending them to zoonotic agents other than salmonella would create additional barriers to trade. Moreover, additional guarantees for food should be tackled under the food hygiene package. I therefore reject Amendments Nos 2 and 22.
I come now to Amendment No 24, and the sanctions to be applied to Member States. Sanctions are a horizontal issue, not only for zoonoses. The Commission is finalising a draft regulation on official feed and food controls, in which the issue of sanctions will be tackled. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No 24 for that reason.
This dossier has progressed quickly. First, may I offer my thanks to all those Members who have driven this dossier forward – in particular Mrs Paulsen and the Members of the Committee on the Environment, who have made such valuable contributions.
An amendment to Article 8 on the prohibition on the use of antibiotics for preventive or growth promotion purposes was rejected in the Committee on the Environment, but not the recital to the same effect. Amendment No 37 would restrict the use of antibiotics to therapeutic purposes only. The Commission has already announced the total phasing-out of anti-microbials used for growth promotion. The Commission will ask for a scientific opinion on the risks and benefits of the use of antibiotics in medicines to control salmonella. For these reasons, and for consistency, I reject Amendments Nos 3 and 37.
Amendments Nos 36 and 38 and the relevant parts of Amendments Nos 29 and 32, on the targets and measures for laying hens and slaughter pigs are acceptable, subject to review of the sampling for pigs and, possibly, setting a different timetable for breeding pigs and for slaughter pigs. We need a scientific opinion before setting additional targets for calves, other cattle and sheep. Moreover, adding targets should be considered on the basis of the experience with the implementation of the new regulation. I therefore reject the relevant parts of Amendments Nos 29 and 32.
On Amendment No 35 on targets, it is evident that these are needed for those zoonotic serotypes with public health significance. However, this amendment goes much further, and it is not practicable. I therefore reject the relevant part of Amendment No 35.
Amendment No 33 would require the eradication in poultry breeding flocks of all salmonella serotypes with public health significance, instead of just two serotypes. Given the difficult experience with the current zoonoses directive, this objective is overly ambitious. It would also contradict the principle of flexibility for Member States to set the necessary control measures. I cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 33.
Shortening the deadline for laboratories to apply international standards for quality assurance schemes seems unrealistic, considering the time needed to prepare and reach accreditation. I therefore reject that part of Amendment No 26.
Amendment No 25 requires the European Food Safety Authority and the Food and Veterinary Office to be closely involved in monitoring that equivalent control programmes exist in third countries. Control programmes are essentially a management issue and do not fall within the remit of the EFSA. I therefore reject that part of Amendment No 25. The other amendments are either wholly or partly acceptable, subject to editorial amendments.
I hope that Parliament understands the reasoning behind the decisions to reject or accept in part some of the amendments put forward. A full listing of the Commission’s position on each of the amendments is being provided to Parliament. I trust that this will be included in the Minutes of this session.
Finally, may I repeat my sincere thanks to all those who have participated in this huge effort. Along with the food hygiene package, the zoonoses proposals mark another important step in our review of food legislation, in pursuit of our objective to ensure that European consumers have access to the safest possible food supply in the world.
Public interest in food safety is immense, as we know. Protection against zoonoses, disease transmission between animals and humans, is a growing concern not only in the European Union, but throughout the world.
The first proposal, on the monitoring of zoonotic agents, is the basis for improving knowledge of the sources and trends of these pathogens, supporting microbiological risk assessments, and adopting risk management measures. The European Food Safety Authority will obviously play a key role in this exercise.
The second proposal, on the control of salmonella, aims to reduce the public health burden caused by this agent. Over 150 000 human cases of salmonella are reported every year in the European Union. The regulation will apply to primary production – a major source of contamination.
While some Member States have seen a reduction in human cases following stringent control measures, the situation varies considerably. The Commission therefore favoured a progressive approach to reducing salmonella occurrence. But the strategy is clear: to ensure high standards of food safety to European consumers, the prevalence of these pathogens must be reduced.
The primary target is salmonella, an important pathogen for which we know efficient control measures can be taken, starting at primary production. Other pathogens may be added in the future, if measures in animal populations can be shown to be efficient in reducing human cases.
Many amendments were discussed in the Committee on the Environment, and I am grateful for the quality of the result, which is excellent. The majority of the amendments are technical and improve the proposals. I welcome these amendments, which represent important and rational suggestions.
Mr President, instead of dwelling on all the amendments that I am happy to accept, I will instead concentrate on those that cause the Commission some difficulty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples