Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-344"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.38.2-344"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, in 2001, during the BSE and CJD scares and outbreaks, the Commission implemented a temporary ban on feed of animal and fish origin being fed to ruminants, pending thorough scientific risk assessment of the regulation. In accordance with the precautionary principle and as a measure to promote consumer confidence, a policy of zero tolerance of processed animal proteins and meat and animal bonemeal in animal feed was put in place. And although no case of TSE in fish had ever been discovered, the feeding of fishmeal to ruminants was also subjected to a temporary ban. This initial six-month ban has been extended on a rolling basis ever since, despite a categorical Commission announcement in 2004 that there was no risk of TSE occurrence, let alone transmission, from fishmeal fed to ruminants and that the policy of zero tolerance of meat and bone spicules in animal feed should be lifted.
The Commission argued that this zero tolerance policy could not be implemented, since the technical detection methods for identifying processed animal protein had not previously been sufficiently accurate to take account of the so-called adventitious presence of small amounts of protein from small birds, mammals and rodents accidentally caught in the harvesting process.
The impossibility of distinguishing these proteins and bone spicules, which do not pose a TSE risk from proteins of ruminant origin which could contain BSE-carrying prions, resulted in a number of high-profile, extremely costly, wasteful and unnecessary withdrawals from shipments and, more controversially, beet-based animal feed, owing to this harmless and unavoidable adventitious presence of non-ruminant proteins.
The proposal before us is intended to amend and update the regulation. In particular, the categorisation of countries according to existing BSE risk, surveillance and monitoring, specified risk material, giving a permanent legal basis for breeding programmes for resistance to TSEs, giving Member States the option to keep BSE cohort animals in their herd and of course revising the feedback.
Given the protracted uncertainty that the failure to come to a decision on lifting the feed ban has caused to farmers and industry, I sincerely hope that this dossier will be adopted at first reading. I welcome the compromise reached and support the provisions relating to the possible lifting of the feed ban, because the provision is based on sound science. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect all interests. Furthermore, I feel it is important to underline that protein is a necessary component of animal diets and the current feed ban is placing us in a precarious position regarding protein supply for animal diets. In Europe, we are only 23% self-sufficient in proteins. Most of our higher quality proteins, for example Brazilian soya, are shipped vast distances from countries where the sustainability debate is now raging.
While there is a debate on the ethics about how animals are being fed, it must be borne in mind that the alternatives sometimes pose even bigger ethical questions. The fact remains that the food industry in the EU is protein deficient. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached on feeding fishmeal to young calves that have high protein requirements. We cannot be driven by emotion; otherwise our credibility as legislators will be severely undermined. Scientific rigour is at the core of this regulation. We should respect the undisputed scientific consensus that fishmeal poses no risk of TSE.
In conclusion, as regards setting the tolerance thresholds for adventitious presence of bone spicules and technically unavoidable contamination, it is imperative that we apply scientific rigour through standing committees under the comitology procedure. This procedure is not perfect, but it is more responsive than codecision and ensures informed scientific analysis and risk assessment, rather than risking emotive concerns guiding European decisions in technical areas.
For this reason, I cannot support Amendment 57, which I believe would threaten the chances of reaching a hard-won first reading agreement in the interests of all concerned. But having said this, as parliamentarians, we should exercise fully and vigilantly our right to scrutinise the outcomes of comitology meetings and to hold the Commission to account when their standing committee experts’ decisions exceed the powers conferred on them by the TSE regulation.
Madam President, may I send my best wishes to Mrs Roth-Behrendt for a speedy recovery and thank her for her long-term interest in this important issue. Thank you for your patience."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples