Mr President, may I thank my colleagues who have already spoken. Now that I have heard Mrs Klass, I am now in a somewhat calmer frame of mind. Looking over towards Mr Böge, with whom I cooperated very closely, and towards the coordinator, Mr Goepel, I wish to express my thanks to them too for the withdrawal of Amendments Nos 41 to 44, which would have permitted the various blending options. I also say that very clearly in the context of the two reports we are dealing with here today. We want food safety, which means safe production from beginning to end of the food chain. That is something which this House has always unanimously advocated. During one of the greatest of all food crises, namely the BSE crisis, the House managed to cooperate in a spirit of mutual confidence, irrespective of party affiliations, and I should have found it very regrettable if, at such a juncture as this, a pseudo-interest group – for it would not have been a genuine interest group – had carried the day. During the BSE crisis, we always said – and Mr Böge was the foremost proponent of this view – that dioxin-contaminated milk must never be mixed with non-contaminated milk as a means of reducing the level of the undesirable substance below the maximum permitted value. We dealt in exactly the same way with all other matters relating to the blending ban. That is why I am grateful to the Commission for introducing this new element to its legislative proposal and to the rapporteur for her master strokes which have introduced slight additions and improvements to the proposal at several points. So what do we actually want? Of course we do not wish to treat the manufacturers of compound feed and other animal feed in any way unfairly, nor do we wish to be unfair towards the poor farmers. But it is not the answer simply to permit blending. Perhaps a register showing contaminated areas would actually be a solution. But I will not accept waste incinerators! Waste incinerators are no longer permitted to emit dioxins. If they still break the rules, it is not only to the detriment of farmers but to the population as a whole. Mrs Klass, would you be so kind as to listen to me? I listened very patiently to you, although I sometimes find that difficult! We must establish a register. We have long been demanding a dioxin register in the European Union which would show where contamination is occurring. And of course, where fields are close to motorways, we must look and see where heavy-metal contamination is occurring. In such circumstances I can certainly accept that farmers in those areas will go to their regional authorities and will tell the Commission too that regional planning, transport, road traffic and other factors are affecting the fields they have inherited from their fathers and that damage is occurring through no fault of their own. How shall we compensate them for this?. Mr Goepel here is making a gesture to indicate money. No question about that. Nor do I have any problem with allowing dilution or blending in the case of certain products, provided it is always carried out under the control of the Member State and of the Commission. That is something to be examined in due course. Let me say again that we shall be doing nobody any favours, nobody in this entire world – neither manufacturers nor farmers nor consumers – if we act here as if this were a conflict between farmers and manufacturers of food products or consumers. We all want the same thing and we have to say this very clearly here in Parliament. One more word on inspections. Yes, the Commission must be able to take protective measures. It can do that in the domain of foodstuffs, and it must also be able to do it in the domain of animal feed. If all of us were served animal feed in the canteen downstairs for a period of time, if we were able to see on our own plates exactly what animal feed is, we should perhaps deal with the issue rather differently and be just as hard and as stringent as we are on the safety of food for human consumption.

Political group: PSE