Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.11.2-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, when this debacle began it was with disbelief that many of us watched how a report whose science was questionable could jeopardise one of the most important rural industries in Scotland. Scottish salmon farming supports 6 500 jobs, 70% in the Highlands and Islands, injecting GBP 2 million every week into the Scottish economy. Scottish salmon accounts for nearly 40% of all Scottish food exports. The bias of the press coverage and the lack of quality information led to a food scare based on insubstantial evidence and falsehood. I was pleased that the Commission took prompt action to put right the evidence and to speak up for the safety of Scottish salmon. So too did the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.
The substance of the food scare was based on a highly misleading piece of research published in the American journal
PCB and dioxin levels in Scottish salmon are significantly lower than the threshold set by the EU, the Food Standards Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organisation. Professor Hugh Pennington, a leading food expert said: 'The evidence is pretty clear that the officially recommended levels, which are higher than the ones that the scientists are talking about, are actually safe.'
The methodology of this research has been called into question. The conclusions are based on a controversial risk assessment model that was introduced by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The risk assessment model is not recognised by international organisations responsible for food safety and public health such as the WHO, which considers it scientifically flawed.
Additionally, the salmon used in the study were purchased prior to the country of origin labelling regulations, and so the study has not even ensured that the salmon tested were farmed in Scotland or the EU. On top of all of this, the research does not contain any new information. Even the figures used in the research are questionable, as they differ from UK Government official figures. With this in mind, the Food Standards Agency does not accept the research findings and advises people to eat two portions of fish per week, with one portion being oily fish, such as salmon. Sadly the American research has ignored all the health benefits of eating salmon, which contains high levels of Omega-3 fatty acids and is proven to reduce the risk of heart attack.
Sir John Krebs, Chairman of the FSA, backed this up. He said that although dioxin levels have decreased dramatically over the past two decades, they remain a consumer concern. The known benefits of eating one portion of oily fish outweigh any possible risks. On the subject of fish feed, which was also brought into question, the feed of US, Canadian and Chilean producers comes from the same sources as that for the Scottish fish farmers. It seems strange that US, Canadian and Chilean samples should be free from levels of the substances under test, compared with those from Scotland.
To my mind there is something very odd going on, when the basis of a report can be taken as read without thorough investigation. In fact, one of the scientists involved in the research – Dr David Carpenter – has confessed that 'There may be some legitimacy in saying the reason they chose to fund this study was that they had another agenda well beyond the health effects.'
Scottish Quality Salmon members already undertake measures to ensure the quality of its feed supplies and have in place a testing regime to ensure its standards are met, as well as the rigorous environmental regulation that fish farms adhere to, which has been improving year on year since fish farming began. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has a specific remit and responsibility to regulate salmon farming – 63 pieces of legislation, 43 European directives, 3 European regulations, 12 Commission decisions – that help reassure consumers that the product they are consuming is of the highest quality.
I do not know if the Commission is in a position to comment on the proposed anti-dumping measures. I understand that there were ongoing negotiations this weekend between the Irish presidency and the British Government. If you have an opportunity to comment, Commissioner, that may be useful.
A line needs to be drawn under this episode. Damage has been done to the Scottish salmon farming industry, there is no doubt about that. However, we have to move on, highlighting the falsehood of the accusations and the importance of eating salmon as part of a balanced, healthy diet. It is because of our membership of the EU that we can work together in order to seek solutions. The European Commission's immediate response reassured consumers that eating salmon is safe. It is only by action at the EU level that we can take action against false food scares and bring reality to bear."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Science."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples