Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-19-Speech-4-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Additives in animal nutrition2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030619.1.4-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-19-Speech-4-0142
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, current legislation on additives in animal nutrition is complex. It is therefore to be welcomed that a proposal has been tabled which reduces the existing chaos into a readily understood format. We agree wholeheartedly that the rules for additives in animal nutrition should become strict and unambiguous. This is certainly necessary. After all, this is about protecting the lives and health of humans and animals. It is important, though, that sound alternative products are available. Where these alternatives are not available, we need to exercise some flexibility. This is why we back the amendments which permit coccidiostatica and histomonostatica for longer than other antibiotics. This is because at present, there are certain diseases in poultry farming which are difficult to fight without these additives. I am certainly not, however, advocating the unlimited use of coccidiostatica. Although the transitional period is somewhat limited, we assume that the feed industry and poultry farming will find sound alternatives to these substances within that time. We are struggling with Amendments Nos 10 and 13 which exclude mixtures and premixtures containing flavourings and appetite stimulants from the labelling requirement. The argument of the economic drawbacks for the industry does not, in our view, carry more weight than the interests of humans and animals, which are at stake here. Indeed, consumers benefit from clear and extensive labelling of the product so that they know exactly what is in it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph