Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.9.3-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I certainly have no intention of keeping you here until midnight.
Precipitate action, not allowing enough time for the authorisation of the same kind of substances as veterinary drugs, or the setting of a cut-off date without prior assessment, would have disastrous consequences for animal production, animal health and animal welfare. I am pleased that a number of you agreed with that proposal.
I am willing for a report to be drawn up on this matter, but I cannot agree to a cut-off date for the authorisations.
Concerning the introduction of flexibility in the authorisation procedure, some amendments improve the Commission's proposal as they take account of the needs of minor species and non-food producing animals.
The setting of specific conditions for data protection when applying for authorisations for minor species is another welcome amendment.
The Commission can accept these amendments. However, it is necessary to recognise the impossibility of making special rules for all types of additives and for all animal categories.
In conclusion, I would like again to thank the rapporteur and Members of Parliament for broadly supporting the policy initiated by the Commission which protects public health while taking proper account of animal health, animal welfare and agricultural production needs.
Parliament's Secretariat is being provided with a full list of the Commission’s position on each of the amendments. I trust that this will be included in the record for this sitting.
Allow me to explain my position on the major points of this proposal and in particular the differences which in some cases still remain between our institutions. Concerning the date for the phasing out of antibiotics, I am happy to note that the Commission's approach has your broad support. But there are some slight differences concerning the date of withdrawal of authorisations. The scientific advice on which this risk management measure is taken mentions the need for a transitional period to allow for animal rearing practices to adapt and also for the development of alternative antibiotics.
For these practical reasons, I cannot accept the amendment which envisages the phasing out of antibiotics from 1 January 2005, despite my recognition of Parliament's desire to get rid of antibiotics in animal nutrition as soon as possible. I agree with that sentiment but would add that this should be in accordance with scientific opinion and should take account of possible effects on animal health and welfare.
Concerning the external dimension of the phasing out process, let me clarify my position. This has been raised by a number of people, including Mr Parish and Mrs Doyle.
The prohibition of antibiotics will also apply to feed imports. With respect to the imports of food of animal origin, the residues testing system currently in place will be used to check for the use of banned substances. This testing system protects human health, since it is designed to reveal residues of medicines, additives and substances in food at levels that present an unacceptable risk to the consumer. It is not sufficient to verify whether forbidden substances were used in the feeding of animals in third countries, as the residues of such substances may not be present at the time of importation. I welcome any suggestion that may be made to increase the resources of the FVO and particularly welcome that observation from a member of the budgetary authority.
I believe that the control of imported products and the condition of equivalency between EU rules and third country rules on the rearing of animals should be considered under horizontal legislation. The Commission will propose a regulation on feed and food controls that will impose rules on this issue. That proposal will take account of your concerns. The draft legislation we are discussing today aims only – and I stress only – to lay down rules for the authorisation of safe additives.
On the time limit of the authorisations, I repeat what I said in my introductory statement: I cannot accept anything other than time-limited authorisations for all feed additives.
As regards the status of coccidiostats, I am aware that some take the view that coccidiostats should only be authorised as veterinary medicinal drugs and not as feed additives. I refer to the point made by Mr Kindermann in this regard.
My position is that the rules imposed by this proposal will ensure that coccidiostats are used in a safe manner, respecting human and animal health."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples