Mr President, the requirements for agriculture to become environmentally-friendly and species-friendly are a matter of general knowledge; implementing them demands that we convert to methods of cultivation, rearing and feeding that are as close to nature as possible. In this chain, the food market is vigorously contended for, and distorted, by businesses operating on a national and international scale. That has an effect on almost all feed proteins and on additives. What happens to a farmer at the feed market is exactly the same as what happens to the consumer at the meat counter. Both have to be able to rely on what is inside the pack of meat, or the sack of feed, being what it says on the outside. It is, unfortunately, not yet universally known that what you feed to animals you end up feeding to humans. That is what makes the forthcoming general overhaul of the densely entangled European legislation in this area not only absolutely necessary but also, I think, overdue, even though, when it comes to additives to feedingstuffs, it is important to consider not only the effect of appetite stimulants or of growth promoters on the animals and hence on the farm’s viability, but also the complex side-effects of such substances. Any risk of detriment to human health or to the environment must be excluded as far as possible. Only thus will it be possible to regain the consumers’ confidence in the safety of foodstuffs of animal origin, a confidence shattered by the events associated with BSE, dioxin and antibiotics. It is that with which this regulation concerns itself, as does the committee’s position, which I endorse. Even though voices are raised to assert that the large-scale banning of antibiotics from the feeding-trough is excessive, since some 90% of antibiotics are used in human and veterinary medicine, it is right that we should put a stop to growth promotion, as these antibiotics are far from being essential. We already have enough problems with the increasing number of people developing resistance to antibiotics. I too have some criticisms to make at this point. On 7 March this year I submitted a written question to the Council on the banning of the additive Nifursol. To this day, I have received no reply, even though Parliament’s administration has pressed for one on two occasions. Nifursol, an aromatic nitrogen compound, was the last remaining prophylactic agent against blackhead disease in turkeys, and it appears that no medication is now licensed for the treatment of this disease. There are no alternatives, and there is no prospect of a vaccine. The reason why Nifursol was banned was that the EU classed it as carcinogenic. According to interim findings published by the Austrian health ministry on 16 June, no harmful residues have been found to date as a result of the testing of turkeys from food markets. If that result is confirmed, then prohibitions to protect human health may no longer be proportionate even under the broad terms of the European Court of Justice’s ruling of 11 September 2002. The ban on Nifursol may end up being re-examined. Feedingstuffs that are guaranteed to be safe, as well as transparency in the production of food, demand that policy decisions be justified by science and taken on the basis of findings; they should not be rushed through in response to suspicions. For me, as a matter of principle, farmers must be at the centre of these decisions rather than on their margins!

Political group: GUE-NGL