english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow newsitems arrow French Consumers Minister Hamon to EuroFora: Transparency key for Meal Safety beyond EU Imports

French Consumers Minister Hamon to EuroFora: Transparency key for Meal Safety beyond EU Imports

Written by ACM
Tuesday, 12 March 2013

 

minister_hamon_reply_to_agg_quest_400

*Strasbourg/EU Parliament/Angelo Marcopolo/- Transparency is of key importance in order to solve Food Safety problems, as those of the recent Scandal on Horsemeat which affected Millions of EU Consumers, and this implies, f.ex. to impose the obligation to Mark the Origins of a Food product even if it has been transformed into a prepared meal in an EU Country, contrary to what was the situation in this regard until now, observed in substance the new French French Minister for Social Economy and Consumption, Benoit Hamon, in reply to a question by "EuroFora", which raised also the issue of Imports from Third Countries, located outside of the EU :

       - "It's a European problem", stressed Minister Hamon in reply to "EuroFora"s question, which already affected more than 4 Millions 500 Thousand EU Consumers in the current case of Horsemeat disguised and paid as Beef, as he denounced earlier.

 

-------------------------------------------

hamon_points_to_agg


- "Obviously, the recent problem, as you said, concerns what happens inside EU's area, even if its origins are located around its external borders" (i.e. mainly towards the Black Sea region, f.ex. reportedly towards Lithuania, Poland and Romania, etc), "EuroFora" observed, referring to earlier Hamon's statements.


-  "But, quid about the (EU) Consumers' protection concerning Food products imported from Foreign (Non-EU) Countries. Should we (EU) reinforce the system of the overall protection also in this regard ?", we asked the competent French Minister.

agg_quest_pn_food_products_imported_into_the_eu

-----------------------------------


- "I think that, it's Obligatory to Mark the Origins (of Food Products) whenever they come from any Third Country located outside of the EU" , Hamon from the outset in reply.

20130312_184454_400


- But, "inside EU Countries, (this obligation)  disappears,  when that (food product : here = meat) is even slightly Transformed", he critically observed :


 - F.ex., "if you buy at a Butcher's shop a fresh piece of Beef, you can know the Origins of that fresh meat".


 - "But, it's enough to just cook a bit that product, f.ex. merely by boiling it with a bit of olive oil, and some seeds, etc., so that when it becomes transformed, then, there is No more any Obligation to Mark the Origins of that meat !", he denounced.


=> - "This is precisely what we want to Change, so that, Tomorrow, for all Prepared Meals, including with Beef, but not only for beef, the Origins of that meat will be Marked", the competent French Minister anounced in reply to "EuroFora"s question.
-----------------

benoit_hamon_reply_to_agg_quest_400
 

    Naturally, this goes even more when the origin of a Food product might come mainly from Foreign, Non-European Countries, even if, at least "at this Stage", in the present case,  "we (EU) didn't find yet any Non-EU actor, ..until Today", as Hamon observed, concerning those prepared meals.

    - However, a relative Uncertainty seems to exist on this point, for the moment, since, - "Now, concerning what comes from areas Outside of the EU, I don't remember exactly what's the situation about EU's (Food) Supplies, in prepared meals, and whether it's very Important" or less, the Consumers' Minister honestly replied, after vainly trying to interrogate the 2 experts who accompagnied him.

    - "But, at any case, we consider that Efforts should be made on Meals with meat Prepared (i.e. treated) inside the EU", Hamon stressed, as a matter of general principle.


    - Thus, at least for the time being, "at any case, this Crisis didn't highlight yet  the problems of Supplies with unmarked meat originating out of the EU", he carefuly reserved his final and exhaustive answer for after a more thorough examination of all the relevant Facts, later on.

hamon_speaks_to_js_agg_in_pe_400


    - "But, (as it stands now), it's rather a problem of Economic Fraud inside the EU", he observed.
-------------------------------------
     + In general, when there are too many Intermediaries between Production and Consumption, it's difficult to be Transparent. So, it's preferable to have Short Networks, instead of Long and complex ones, and that's why the Big Agro-Food Businesses in France have just committed themselves to use "VBF", i.e. beef meat produced in France, with a special Add informing consumers, Hamon also added.


     - "And there, it's much more Difficult to commit Fraud", he estimated.
-----------------
    The French Minister's Press Conference this afternoon followed an earlier, short but urgent Debate at EU Parliament on such Problems in the Food Supply Chain, seen in the context of the recent Horsemeat issue,  with the competent, Health and Consumers' EU Commissioner Tonio Borg, in the Morning, who is also due to speak at a Conference organized by EU's Economic and Social Committee later this same week in Brussels.

    Topically, this key issue of Food Safety move is raised at the eve of an important EU Parliament's plenary public Debate and Vote on the Future of EU's Common Agriculture policy, Tomorrow in Strasbourg, which will give a Mandate for imminent Negotiations between MEPs and Governments at EU Council on a Strategic crossroads affecting Europe's Economy, Society, Health, Security and Independence, as well as relations of trust with EU Citizens.

(../..)

***

(NDLR : "DraftNews", as already send, earlier, to "EuroFora"s Subscribers/Donors. A more accurate, full Final Version may be published asap).

***
Enterprises' Competitiveness for 2014-2020

Statistics

Visitors: 58972112

Archive

Login Form





Remember me

Lost your Password?
No account yet? Create account

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

imag0218_400_01

(Opinion).

 In Democracy, the forthcoming choices for EU's Top Jobs, as the New EU Parliament's President, new EU Commission's President (+ probably EU Council's President, EU Foreign Minister, etc) should be made according to EU Citizens' Votes in June 7, 2009 European Elections, and main EU Governments' strategic policies.

At the heart of the biggest EU Countries, in France and Germany, EU Citizens clearly voted for a renovated, non-technocratic but Political Europe based on Values, declared explicitly incompatible with Turkey's controversial EU bid.

This main choice was also supported in several other small or medium EU Countries, such as Austria (cf. promise of a Referendum), Spain (cf. EPP program's reservations vis a vis Enlargment), etc., while EPP Parties won also in Poland, Hungary, Cyprus, etc.

In other Countries, whenever Governing coalitions didn't make these choices or eluded them, continuing to let a Turkish lobby push for its entry into the EU, they paid a high price, and risked to damage Europe, by obliging EU Citizens to massively vote for euro-Sceptics whenever they were the only ones to offer a possibility to promise  real change and oppose Turkey's demand to enter into the EU :

It's for this obvious reason that British UKIP (IndDem) succeeded now (after many statements against Turkey's EU bid) to become Great Britain's 2nd Party, unexpectedly growing bigger even than the Governing Labour Party, as well as the Liberal party  ! Facts prove that it's not an isolated phenomenon : A similar development occured in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders "Party for Freedom" (PVV) became also the 2nd biggest in the country, (after EPP), boosting the chances of a politician who had withdrawn in 2004 from an older party "because he didn't agree with their position on Turkey". And in several other EU Member Countries, even previously small parties which now focused on a struggle against Turkey's controversial demand to enter in the EU, won much more or even doubled the number of their MEPs (fex. Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, etc).

On the contrary, whenever Socialist and oher parties were explicitly or implicitly for Turkey's controversial EU bid, they obviously lost Citizens' votes and fell down to an unprecedented low.

In consequence, EU Citizens clearly revealed their main political choices, in one way or another : They voted to change for less Bureaucracy, but more Politics and Values in a Europe really open to EU Citizens, but without Turkey's controversial EU bid.

Recent political developments are obviously different from the old political landscape which existed in the Past of 1999-2004, when Socialists based on Turkish 1% vote governed undisputed not only in Germany, but also in the UK, Greece and elsewhere, France followed old policies decided when it had been divided by "cohabitation", before the 3 "NO" to EU  Referenda since May 2005, before Merkel, before Sarkozy, etc.... before the surprises of 7 June 2009 new EU Elections.

If the current candidates to the Top EU jobs promise and guarantee to respect People's democratic choices, OK.

Otherwise, Europe must find new candidates, really motivated and able to implement these democratic choices of the People.

The beginning of crucial, final Decisions are scheduled for the 1st EU Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg, in the middle of July, and they could be completed towards the October session, when Lisbon Treaty's fate will have been fixed.


See relevant Facts also at : http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/2009electionsandturkey.html
http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/daulelections.html
http://www.eurofora.net/brief/brief/euroelectionresult.html

 ***

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Results

SMF Recent Topics SA

PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING