Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-189"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100908.10.3-189"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-08-Speech-3-9862
lpv:speaker	lp:Bart Staes2
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-29--2012-02-12)3 vice-chair; CONT (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DEVE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Groen (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2009-09-16--2012-02-05)3
lpv:translated text	"I regret that the majority of members have rejected the three proposals put forward by the Greens for a modification of the directive and stricter national rules, for an incentive for alternative testing methods and for a further curb on the use of primates. The new animal testing legislation is seriously flawed. Member States will no longer have the freedom to adopt stricter rules on animal testing. This restriction of national discretion serves no useful purpose. Animals will become victims of the internal market’s toe-the-line dogma. Nevertheless, it is important that Member States dare lead the way. Without national pioneers, many European animal welfare rules, such as the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, would never have come about. The new directive improves the control of companies and institutions which breed, market or use laboratory animals. However, the wording of the requirement that alternative test methods should be used where they are available carries less of the force of an order than that used in the previous directive. This is a missed opportunity to reduce animal suffering and to improve the quality of research. The new rules fail to acknowledge the progress that has been made in developing alternatives to animal testing, which are, incidentally, often more reliable than animal tests."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph