Madam President, it is very appropriate that the issue which – in restrospect – did so much to blemish the reputation of the last two Commissions should be the subject of the opening debate for this new one. I welcome what President Prodi has said today. The citizens of Europe have the right to know what they are eating, where it was produced and by what means, and to have these things clearly indicated and labelled. Of course, all of us believe that where other countries’ products are concerned; but we also need to know it about our own. When I asked the Commission representatives in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection a couple of months ago about the reported illegal recycling of sewage sludge into animal feed in some Member States, nobody could define for me what sewage sludge was, where it was being used or why. Two separate directorates of the Commission were there – the then DG XXIV and DG VI. Everybody looked at everybody else. I would like to hear from Mr Byrne today, using this small example initially, whether he has got to the bottom of this problem. We are not talking here of a practice of which no-one knew the dangers before. It is a disgusting procedure. We need to know why and how it has been allowed to happen. I hope Mr Byrne, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us. What we need is the ability to act quickly where the law is not upheld. In the dioxin scandal, for example, what is needed, it seems to me, is not so much a mad rush to ban a whole range of products – RVOs and so on – as the possibility of discovering whether these things are new pollutants or simply products which have become polluted. It we can find that out we are on the way to a better scrutiny of the products themselves. A food agency, which some have doubts about, is to me as credible and as necessary as an environment agency, about which there were also doubts at its inception. It would provide a benchmark for all Member States. For those whose precautionary legislation is defective it would be a boost and a buttress. For those who now set high standards, as I believe my own country does, it would be a reassurance that we are all toiling in the same vineyard and on the same level cornfield. The tragedy is that in areas where we have a rudimentary common policy, through the scientific committees and the new Veterinary Office in Dublin, some Member States still break ranks. We have had a relentless drive to achieve full safety methods in beef production in my country, quite rightly after BSE. That led to the end of the beef ban in August of this year, but not, apparently, in France. I would like to know now from Mr Byrne how he proposes to validate Community decisions based on scientific advice – as the lifting of the beef ban was – when they are flouted by a Member State. Safety issues simply cannot be allowed to degenerate into shabby national politics at the will of any Member State. I would like to know how the White Paper will ensure coherent safety standards, proper labelling and precautionary advice. We want to see these things implemented in the three-year target period that he has set for himself. It would be disastrous if we were left with the politics of retribution and recrimination where we could move towards common European standards. It would be absolutely ludicrous if we were to go into the next WTO round unable to set out clear standards ourselves which are the framework of the precautionary principle. If we do that we are left exchanging insults on the basis of self-interest and ignorance. Europe can surely do better than that. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE