Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.9.3-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the Commission for this generally very positive proposal on additives for use in animal nutrition, which I welcome in principle. I would also like to thank the Danish Presidency and my colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
This proposal aims to consolidate existing rules on additives in feedingstuffs and clarifies certain procedural aspects related to dossier evaluation and the types of authorisation granted to feed additives, thus making them more transparent for producers and consumers alike.
An aspect of fundamental political significance in this proposal is the ban from 2006 on the four antibiotic growth promoters that are still authorised. This is not an arbitrary ban, but is based on reports by the Scientific Food Committee, and is consistent with the demands repeatedly voiced publicly by medical experts. As cross-resistance to drugs used in human medicine can also no longer be ruled out, there is a need for action in order to protect consumers. In this regard, pressure must be brought to bear by granting temporary authorisation only so that other methods, such as appropriate vaccines, are developed.
In principle, I am in favour of the Commission's proposal. I too think it is inappropriate, on the antibiotic issue, to give what amounts to a blank cheque for unrestricted use of coccidiostats in the future. It is not plausible to ban antibiotics on health policy grounds if these health policy arguments then do not apply to the use of coccidiostats.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, wants coccidiostats and histomonostats to continue to be authorised for use until 2008. The Commission should then submit a report, before 1 January 2008, on the use of these substances, together with a proposal on further use. Where, then, are the points of difference? First of all, Amendment No 2 regulates imports from third countries of additives for use in animal nutrition, and states that the rules governing imports must at least be as strict, in terms of application and monitoring, as those which the same Member States apply in order to safeguard human and animal health
In Amendments Nos 4, 7 and 9, I speak out very clearly in favour of guidelines for the authorisation of feed additives. I call on the Commission, in cooperation with the European Food Safety Authority, to establish and submit guidelines for the authorisation of feed additives. In its vote, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development clearly endorsed the adoption of guidelines in the interests of simplifying the authorisation of additives. Once an additive has been authorised, it is surely sufficient for the relevant dossier to be regularly updated, rather than being subject to a full review every time.
Parliament is calling for mixtures and premixtures containing flavouring and appetite stimulants to be exempt from the labelling requirement. It is stated explicitly that this will not apply to flavouring and appetite stimulants subject to a quantitative limitation when used in feed and drinking water.
There are of course now calls in this House for the use of coccidiostats to be permitted only when prescribed by veterinary surgeons. I myself take the view – and I speak from experience – that we must have preventive healthcare for animals as well. Some form of animal protection is required, and it is obvious that an animal which is already sick needs to be treated with far higher doses, so my own practical experience makes it difficult for me to understand the reasoning behind these calls. As regards the ban from 2006 on the four antibiotic growth promoters, I would like to say to Commissioner Byrne that my Amendment No 31 offers a sensible compromise here.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my sincere thanks to everyone who worked so hard on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples