Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-250"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Control of foot and mouth disease2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030514.10.3-250"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-14-Speech-3-2512
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; CONT (2003-01-29--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-09-18--2004-04-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, while we are considering this evening how to combat FMD in future, animals and farmers are being hit by the next infectious animal disease, fowl pest. The EU’s animal disease policy requires re-evaluation. No one, in 1991, was aware of the possible consequences of instituting the policy of non-vaccination. Since then we have learned the hard way. Vaccination could have prevented the destruction of millions of healthy animals. If economic interests are paramount, mankind loses its dignity and creation its protection. I am glad that the Committee on Agriculture has adopted our amendment, in which we make an urgent plea for the observance of ethical principles in combating animal disease. In the new directive set out by the Commission, concern for creation still receives scant attention. I did not dare to count on preventive vaccination. I had, though, hoped that ‘emergency vaccination and retention of stock’ would be the first option in the event of an outbreak. The Commission continues to opt for culling and at the very most extends the possibilities to emergency vaccination. I there fore support the amendments making emergency vaccination the first option in combating the disease. Moreover, such emergency vaccination and keeping animals alive must be given a fair chance. Products of vaccinated animals are no less safe than those of non-vaccinated animals. Labelling these products, however, does create such an impression. And that in spite of the fact that, for years prior to 1991, these products were eaten by consumers in my country and elsewhere. In addition we must prevent Member States having to opt for culling on the basis of the financial contribution made by Brussels to combating the disease. Emergency vaccination costs the European Union less money, while a Member State is subsequently forced to incur costs to market the products. The savings created by vaccination should be used to compensate for these incidental costs. The existence of various serotypes of the FMD virus is an argument against preventive vaccination. At the same time it is an extra stimulus for research into the development of FMD vaccines. This makes preventive vaccination the option for the future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph