Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-351"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.38.2-351"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I was a journalist at the height of the BSE crisis, so I have very vivid memories of the unfolding of that story and its impact not just on politicians but on consumer confidence. It was
story of the century in its impact on farming and how we do our business and on the animal feed industry. I recall interviewing a feed compounder at that time who had no idea where most of his ingredients were coming from, because the word traceability had not been invented. I think perhaps we forget how serious the situation was.
In Ireland now, we are looking forward to not slaughtering cohorts when we discover a BSE case in a herd on farms, but many farms have suffered as a result of our more stringent policy in this regard.
Fishmeal is an important protein source and I think that fear alone should not keep it out of the food chain. As has already been said, Europe produces only about one-fifth of its protein needs and we import soya to fill that gap. Much of that is genetically modified and it is ironic that European consumers are concerned about GM and yet we have to rely on GM protein for much of our animal feed.
Zero tolerance is a big issue for the feed industry and for farmers. It has caused huge problems and is unworkable. In my view, Amendment 50 is better than Amendment 57 when it comes to the adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination of feed ingredients. We need science to rule here and we need scientific risk assessments of the level of adventitious protein sources in feed. I think the feed industry itself would welcome clarity on that, because too often zero tolerance has given rise to huge costs as well as concern and confusion within that industry.
We are ten years down the road. I think it is good that tonight we are debating in less emotive terms than we would have ten years ago, but I would urge that people look at the science of the debate, rather than the emotion of the past, when they are voting on this very important report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples