Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, “der Mensch ist, was er isst”, you are what you eat. Those, ladies and gentlemen, were indeed the first words I spoke in my maiden speech last year with reference to the Belgian dioxin crisis. Those are also the words with which Mr Bowis began his explanatory statement and speech in this Chamber. This is an immediate sign that Mr Bowis and myself, along with the Environmental Committee, are largely on the same wavelength, and I thank Mr Bowis for the very constructive collaboration of the past few months. I would like to make four observations. The report is right to draw a distinction between risk analysis on the one hand and risk management on the other. It is against this background that I would first of all like to say that food safety guarantees hinge on strict inspections organised by the state, and those inspections are only as strong as the weakest link. If the weakest link breaks, the inspection process will collapse like a house of cards. This means that all inspectorates must work together well and, often, insufficient attention is paid to the inspectorates which inspect animal medicines; this is the pharmaceutical inspectorate in my country. I also regret, therefore, that that inspectorate will hardly be involved – if at all – in the future operation of the European Food Safety Agency. After all, experience has taught us that ineffective inspection of animal medicines and ineffective inspection of the prescribing behaviour of vets can lead to scandals. So I would like to flag this up as an issue. Secondly, the Bowis report clearly states that the European Food Safety Agency is responsible for risk analysis. We should be very aware that this agency will only be a strong partner in the Food Safety Agency safety debate once it has acquired respectability in the course of the years. This respectability will be gained, not through laws or legislation, but through integrity, academic brilliance, neutrality, duty to be accountable, transparency and comprehensibility. I therefore urge that, when scientific opinions are being weighed up, minority viewpoints also be published each time. After all, science is not something static, it is ever fluid, and the debate on the six American hormones has been sufficient evidence of this. I also welcome the farm to fork approach. I would even go one step further and argue in favour of the seed to spoon approach. That means that when Food Safety Agency safety is examined, all products are taken into consideration, and I would refer to Paragraph 11 of the resolution in this connection. Fourthly, Parliament is right to highlight in Paragraph 17 that the rapid alert system must be extended to cover all food safety aspects, including animal feed. It is only right that we should call for the swift introduction of a positive list, Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, this is only the beginning; we have a long way to go yet. We must realise that consumers must regain their confidence in food and that is a fundamental human right. I hope that in the coming months and years, we will be closely monitoring the Commission during the implementation of the White Paper.

Political group: Verts-ALE