Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-11-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010611.5.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is a well-known saying that well-being is more important than welfare. This may not always be obvious in the case of people, but in the case of animals, I would say that that is a matter of fact. Welfare for people can even harm animals’ well-being, particularly if we consider the pursuit of profit. However, what is more important to us is that animals should also be accepted as God’s creatures. Without putting them on a par with people, that means that we should be proper stewards. Unfortunately, cattle species in particular have been reduced to production factors in our economy and, let us be honest, the consumer is all too happy to benefit from the low prices which this entails. Legislation on animal welfare is mostly very detailed in certain areas, but lacks a coherent vision. The enforcement of that legislation is, at the same time, a great cause for concern, and it often amounts to nothing but rules on paper. In fact, it is telling that, in a totalitarian regime such as China, the concept of animal welfare does not even exist in the language. We welcome initiatives which considerably restrict the transport of live cattle. It is really beyond me why slaughter cannot take place prior to transport instead of afterwards. In that connection, I consider breaks in the journey to be a stopgap. The maximum period of transport for live animals should make these redundant.
Mr President, if we really take the well-being of animals into account, then it will be obvious that agricultural policy cannot merely be based on economic measures."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples