Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.2.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this regulation raises a problem insofar as it enforces, in the area of identification of pet animals, the use of the electronic microchip – reputed to be tamper-proof – and spells the end of the use of tattoos, since microchips represent an effective, modern method that is more humane for the animal.
Doctor Mouthon, however, a professor at the Maison-Alfort vet school in France, cast considerable doubt upon the reliability of the method. On 21 March 2002, he demonstrated, before a witness, how easy it was to deactivate the microchips so as to render them unreadable using a simple electric device producing magnetic radiation. He did this without leaving any marks and without causing any pain. I have provided you with the witness report. He also states that the microchip can move around the animal’s body, as shown in x-rays, medical reports and surgical studies; that the microchip can be removed using nothing more than a Stanley knife, as has come to light, when trafficking rings in pet animals have been broken up.
In addition, this rather unreliable procedure will triple the cost of identification. It costs approximately EUR 22 for a traditional tattoo, almost EUR 70 for a microchip, involving a mandatory visit to the vet, who from now on has the monopoly on identification. This excessive cost will penalise millions of dog and cat owners – particularly the least well-off, for whom a pet animal is a source of comfort – whereas in France, as the rapporteur points out, we have a cheap and reliable centralised register, which has been working well for some time now and which makes it easy to firmly identify and, therefore, to find stray animals. This is, in my view, the objective we are seeking. So why try to harmonise everything, especially if it is to align the system against the least reliable method? Let us, on an issue of such little strategic importance, allow subsidiarity to have a completely free reign and allow the two systems to work side by side."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples