Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.9.2-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly I would like to say how grateful I am to Members of Parliament for raising these important issues. Let me also say that I am sure all of you may well accept this as a valuable contribution to debates in Parliament but sometimes general questions are followed up by extremely detailed questions that can best be responded to in correspondence. However, I will do my best to answer such questions as you have raised. I have taken notes and if I am not able to deal with technical issues of a specific nature, I will respond to the questioner in writing.
All the time we keep this under review. In the event that a problem arises, to the extent that it arose in China, it was felt that the only appropriate response in those circumstances was a ban. As a consequence, a ban was placed on the importation of chickens, crustaceans, honey and one or two other products. That was the appropriate response in those circumstances. If we come to the conclusion that is the appropriate response in respect of other countries which seek to trade with the European Union and send food here, as distinct from the continuation from a 100% control programme, that will happen. But we have not reached that view in respect of the two countries I have identified.
The more detailed and technical questions that have been raised by many of you I have taken note of. I will ensure that each of you receives a response in writing in due course.
The issues that have been raised centre around the question of why the inspections were suspended and when these inspections will be resumed. As I indicated in my earlier contribution, these inspections were suspended either because there was a ban on the importation of products from that country or because in the two countries in question there was 100% testing in respect of all products coming from those countries.
It is expected that the controls that are put in place in Member States effectively carry out the job that they are supposed to do because it is understood that these inspections have to be 100%. Therefore it is important that they reveal any residues in any of the foods that are designated for testing. When the tests show positive, I want to confirm, as I indicated earlier, that these products are destroyed.
A number of you raised the question whether there were doubts about standards and whether there was any pressure being put on the Commission and on DG SANCO in particular by other DGs in relation to the carrying out of tests or the changing of procedures, either by suspending FVO inspections in third countries or by not doing so. I confirm to the House considerations of that kind never impinge on a decision in relation to food safety. I have made that point here in this Parliament on many occasions and I am happy to repeat it now.
Inevitably you meet representatives from the developing countries that we are talking about and often others, sometimes Members of Parliament, who make the suggestion that perhaps the European Union is putting in place precautionary barriers in place of tariff barriers. This is an important issue and has to be taken into account, but I have always responded by saying that the protection of public health, the protection of consumers and the maintenance of the standards that consumers expect in relation to the importation of food must come first.
I have to assure Members of Parliament who raised this question that the decisions that are taken in relation to these kinds of issues – testing for residues – are strictly based on the scientific analysis and judgement of the technical and scientific staff in DG SANCO, who give their advice as to the appropriate way forward in respect of these issues. No other political or trade consideration is ever taken into account. That simply does not happen.
On the question of when the inspections will be resumed, that will happen in the spring, but there is not much point in sending inspectors to third countries – or the ones I have been describing – to carry out tests to determine what we know already, to confirm the continuation of either a ban or 100% testing. The only conclusion that is being suggested by those who raised this question is that, if these tests and inspections continue and if it is found that there are still residues or that 100% testing is an inefficient and inadequate response, we should there and then decide to put in place a ban on the importation of foods from those developing countries.
That is a very serious decision to take. We have to determine whether it is a proportionate response to a risk that may exist to the consumers of the European Union, bearing in mind not just trade considerations but the kinds of consideration I am sure questioners have in mind here today. I know that you have concerns about the welfare of and benefits to developing countries also. This is not an inconsiderable issue. In deciding what is an appropriate response, we have to take into account all of these considerations and make sure that we come to proportionate responses.
One of the most difficult aspects of my job in dealing with food safety is to come up with solutions that are proportionate. Very often, when you are too hard, people will point that out. Sometimes when they believe that you are too weak, the other side will point that out. It is not always possible to keep everybody happy on all occasions. But I am satisfied, bearing in mind the rigour with which inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office carry out their work and the reports they make, which are made available to the public on the Internet for all of us to read, as well as the work that is undertaken by the control authorities in the Member States to ensure that where 100% testing is required, that is done. That appears to me to be the proportionate response to the risk that may have been identified."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples