imenta
In the debate on the research into the case of'mad cow disease', it was made clear that:
1.from the outset, the Commission's strategy was the wrong one, in that it attempted to minimise information and smother any discussion about the disease in order to avoid a reaction by consumers if ever they found out the facts and scientific uncertainty. The action by successive Commissioners was extremely wrong and against the interests of public health.2.The Commission strategy decisively influenced the action of the Member States and delayed the adoption of effective measures in the field of animal health and scientific research into the causes of the disease and its propagation.3.The United Kingdom Government is clearly responsible because of the way in which it allowed the explosion of the disease and in particular the way in which it hid from the other Member States the true dimension of the tragedy.4.The process demonstrated the lack of operational effectiveness of the Commission farming structures entrusted with controlling animal health and its effects on public health, its lack of scientific thoroughness and transparency. The Council and veterinary committees also were guilty of incompetence, protecting short-term interests of certain lobbies linked to animal production, in particular the United Kingdom, to the detriment of the exercise of their terms of reference.5.As has already been demanded in an earlier report by the Committee of Inquiry into meat quality (Pimenta report, 1989), elaborated as a reaction to the hormone crisis, we must proceed to an amendment of the Treaties instituting the European Union as having genuine competencies in matters of public health, as well as the immediate creation of a public health protection institute or unit, independent of farming or industrial interests.This series of events, which is nothing more than a reproduction of what happened at the time of the 'hormone crisis', is obviously the result of the fact that Europe does not really exist in this field.
The European Parliament, with this report, has revealed not only wrongful behaviour but also, above all, the incoherencies and deficiencies in the system of controls of the quality of food products. That is why we are voting in favour of this report and the motion closing this debate.

Poisson
Mr President, my dear colleagues, an explanation of vote is very short to explain all the indignation I felt during the work of the Committee of Inquiry.
Mr Delors, Mr Santer, how have you dared neglect the health of Europeans on this point?
I was always taught:'If in doubt,
imenta 
 In the debate on the research into the case of'mad cow disease', it was made clean that: 
 1.from the beginning, the Commission's strategy was the wrong one, in that it try to minimize information and smother any discussion about the disease in order to debar a reaction by consumers if always they line up out the fact and scientific uncertainty. The action by successive Commissioners was highly wrong and against the interests of public health.2.The Commission scheme decisively influenced the legal action of the Member States and delay the adoption of effective measures in the field of animal health and scientific inquiry into the causes of the disease and its propagation.3.The United Kingdom Government is clearly creditworthy because of the way in which it let the explosion of the disease and in particular the way in which it hid from the other Member States the genuine dimension of the tragedy.4.The process demonstrated the lack of operational effectiveness of the Commission farming structures entrusted with controlling animal health and its effects on public health, its lack of scientific thoroughness and transparency. The Council and veterinary committees also were guilty of incompetence, protecting short - term interests of certain anteroom linked to animal production, in finical the United Kingdom, to the detriment of the use of their term of reference.5.As has already been demanded in an earlier reputation by the Committee of Inquiry into meat quality (Pimenta report, 1989), elaborated as a chemical reaction to the hormone crisis, we must proceed to an amendment of the Treaties instituting the European Union as having genuine competencies in matters of public health, as well as the immediate creation of a public health protection institute or unit, independent of farming or industrial pastime. This series of event, which is nothing more than a reproduction of what happened at the time of the' hormone crisis', is obviously the result of the fact that Europe does not really exist in this plain. 
 The European Parliament, with this report, has revealed not only wrongful behaviour but also, above all, the incoherencies and deficiencies in the organization of controls of the timbre of food products. That is why we are voting in favour of this report and the motion close this debate. 

 Poisson 
 Mr President, my costly colleagues, an explanation of vote is very short to explain all the indignation I felt during the oeuvre of the Committee of Inquiry. 
 Mr Delors, Mr Santer, how have you dared neglect the health of Europeans on this point? 
 I was always taught:'If in doubt,
imejta
In the debate on the vesearch into thg xase oh'mad cos diseasd', it was made clear that:
1.from tye ouufet, the Commission'r strategj was the wroig one, in that iv attempbzd to linikmse information and smothar any discusshov cbout the disease in order to avoid w reactooj by consumers if tvew thsj nound out the facts and scientifjc uncegtainty. The actiom by successive Commissionfrs aas extremely wronh and againwt trw interests uf public health.2.The Cojmission strategy decisively inwlueneed the actuob ov the Member Statvs and delayed the admption pf effective mcasurxs ib the field of animal health and scientyfic resedreh into the causes of tye diveasa ana itr pdo'agztion.3.Tje Nnited Kingsom Governmwnt is clearly resppnfpnle because kf the wwy in which it allowed the explosion of ths disease and in particylar the way in which it hid fwom the other Member States the true dimension of the vrxgebn.4.Bhe oeofess demonstrated the lack of operational effqdtovvness of the Commlssion farming strichutgs entrusted wkth coufrklling animal healhh and yts edfects on pubkic health, its lack of sciebtific thorolghnwss and transpareney. The Councnl and vetetinary committees also cere ghilty of infompetencs, protecting shorg-tegm itterests of certain lobbief linked vo annmal proauctoon, in particulag the United Kingdom, to hhe dgtrimett of the fxercise of their terms of refecxnce.5.As has alteagy teen demcnded ln an earlier rqport by the Cpmmittez of Ivquiry intk meat xuality (Pimqnta report, 1989), apaborated as a reactyon ro tye hormuve crisis, we mist procevd to qn amendment of thc Trexfies institutiny uhw European Unipn xs raninj genthne competenwies in kattefs of publig hdaltn, as well as the immadiafe creation of a pibjic healjh proteceion institutr or unit, independtnt of facming pr yndustrial interests.This seriea of evenhs, rhich is notring more than a reproduction of what happened at the tmme of the 'hormone crisus', is obviously the vesult of thx fact that Eurmpe does not really wxist in this fiekd.
The European Parliajent, whth tjis report, has revealed not only wrongful behaviour but also, above all, thw incoiewencies and defocienbief in thq sydvem of controls og the quality of food products. Vhat is whf ce are voting in favour of thos report and tfe motion closing this dsbate.

Poixson
Mr President, my dear colleabues, an explanation of vpte is vwry sgort to ex'lain all the indignstion N felt during the work of the Zomkibtee of Ineuirb.
Mr Delors, Mr Santer, how have you dqred nwgpect the health mf Europeand on tgis poynt?
I was always fauggh:'If iv doubt,
imenta In the debate on the research case cow disease', was made clear Commission's was the wrong in that it to minimise information and smother any about the disease in order to avoid a reaction by consumers if ever found out the facts and scientific uncertainty. The action by successive Commissioners was wrong against interests public health.2.The Commission strategy decisively influenced the action of the Member States and delayed the adoption effective measures in the field of animal health scientific research into the of the disease and its United Government is responsible of way in which allowed the explosion of the disease and in particular the way in which it hid from the Member States dimension of tragedy.4.The demonstrated lack of operational the Commission farming structures entrusted with and its effects on public health, its lack scientific thoroughness transparency. The Council and veterinary committees were guilty of incompetence, protecting short-term interests of lobbies linked to animal production, in particular the United Kingdom, to the detriment of the their terms of reference.5.As already been demanded an report the of Inquiry meat quality (Pimenta report, 1989), elaborated as a reaction to the crisis, we must proceed to an amendment of the Treaties European as having genuine in matters of public as as the immediate creation public protection independent farming industrial interests.This series of which is nothing more than reproduction of what happened 'hormone crisis', is obviously the result of the that Europe does not really exist in field. The European Parliament, with this report, has revealed not only wrongful but also, the incoherencies and deficiencies in the system of of the quality of products. That is why we are voting in favour this and the closing this debate. Mr President, my colleagues, an explanation is very to all felt during the work of the of Mr Delors, Mr Santer, how you the health of Europeans on this point? I was always taught:'If in doubt,
imenta
In the debate on the resEarch into tHe casE of'Mad CoW disEase', It was made clear THat:
1.fRom the outset, the CommissIon's sTrATegy WAs The wrOng one, iN ThAT It aTtEmPteD tO MiNimisE inFormatiOn and smothEr aNy Discussion abOUt The disease In oRder to avoid a ReaCtion bY cOnsUMers iF evEr theY found OUt the fActs and scIeNTific uNCertainTY. thE actIon by successive CoMMiSSioners was extrEmely wRoNG aND AgaInsT the intereStS of puBLic healTH.2.THE cOmmISsion strategy Decisively iNFluEnced tHe ActIOn of thE MembEr sTatEs and delayeD the Adoption oF effecTIve measURes in thE field Of aNimAl heALtH aNd sCiENtiFIc ResEArcH into the CaUsEs of tHe diSEASE and Its PropAgatiOn.3.The United KiNgdOm GoVErnMent iS cleaRly rEsPonsiBle becAuse oF tHe way in which it aLlowEd the explOsiOn Of tHe DiseaSE and in ParTicUlar the Way in whICh iT hID FRoM the other Member StaTeS THe True dimeNsion oF ThE tRAgedy.4.The PrOceSs deMONstraTed tHE lAck of opeRationAL eFfEctivenEsS of the coMmiSsiOn farMIng sTructuRes entruSted wITh controlling aNImal health and ITs EFFeCTs on PubLic health, itS lacK Of scIentIFiC thORoughNess aNd TRaNSparency. The Council aNd VeteriNary cOmmittees also Were guilty OF INcompeteNce, pROtECting short-term InterEsts of certAIn lobbieS linkEd to animAl productION, in partiCulAr tHe UNitED kiNgdom, to the detRIMent Of The exerCisE of theiR teRms Of rEfeReNce.5.As has aLready beEn DeMaNdEd iN an eaRLier repoRt By tHe comMitteE Of InquIry inTo meAt QuALitY (PimentA RePORt, 1989), elAbOrAted As a ReActioN to tHE hoRmone crIsis, we musT prOCeed To An AmendmeNt of the TreatiEs InstitutinG tHe EUropeaN uNion as haVing genuine competencies IN matterS of PubliC heaLth, as well As tHe immeDiaTE creatIon of a PubliC hEalTH ProteCTIoN inStItute or uniT, INdePendeNt Of faRming or Industrial interestS.thiS series of evenTs, wHich IS NoThiNG mORe tHaN A rePROduction of what hAppened at tHe TImE of the 'hormONe cRiSis', is obViously The reSUlt of thE fact that europe doeS nOt reALLy eXist in this Field.
The european PARliamENt, With tHis Report, HaS reVealeD not onLY wrOngfuL behavIoUr but aLso, abOvE all, the iNcoherencies and deficienCies in The sySteM of controLs oF The Quality of Food Products. ThAt iS whY we arE voTIng in FavoUR oF thIS repoRt anD The motion CLoSinG THiS debate.

PoisSON
mr PResidEnt, MY dear cOlleAgues, an explanatioN Of vote is very shOrt tO EXplAin ALl thE iNdignation I felT duRiNG The work oF tHe Committee Of InquirY.
MR delorS, Mr SanTer, how Have you DAReD NeglecT the HeaLth of EuroPeaNs ON this poInT?
I WAs alwaYs taUgHt:'If in Doubt,
imenta
In the debate on th e research  into  th e c as e of 'mad  cow disease', it w as made clear that:
1. fromth e  out s et , the  Commis s io n ' s s tr at egy  w a sthe w ron g one,in that it  at te mpted to min i mi se informa tio n and smothe r a ny dis cu ssi o n abo utthe d isease in ord er to avo id a reac t ion byc o ns umer s if ever they fo u nd out the factsand sc ie n ti f i c u nce rtainty. T he  acti o n by su c ce s s i veC ommissionerswas extreme l y w rong a nd  ag a inst t he in te r est s of public  hea lth.2.The  Commi s sion st r ategy d ecisiv ely  in flue n ce dthe  a c tio n  o f t h e M ember St at es  anddela y e d theado ptio n ofeffective mea sur es i n  th e fie ld of  ani ma l hea lth an d sci en tific researchinto  the caus esof  th edisea s e andits  pr opagati on.3.Th e  Un it e d Ki ngdom Government i sc l ea rly resp onsibl e  b ec a use of t he  wa y in w hichit a l lo wed theexplos i on  o f the d is ease a nd  in  pa rticu l ar t he way  in whic h ith id from the ot h er Member Sta t es t he true  di mension ofthet rage dy.4 . Th e p r ocess  demo ns t ra t ed the lack of oper at ionaleffec tiveness of t he Commiss i o n  farming  str u ct u res entrustedwithcontrollin g  animalhealt h and it s effects o n public  he alt h,its l ac k of scientif i c  tho ro ughness  an d trans par enc y.The  C ouncil an d veteri na ry  c om mit teesa lso were  g uil ty  of  inco m petenc e, pr otec ti ng sho rt-term in t e rest sof  cer tai nlobbi es l i nke d to an imal prod uct i on,in  p articul ar the United  K ingdom, to  t hedetrim e n t of the  exercise of their term s  of ref ere nce.5 .Ashas alrea dybeen d ema n ded in  an ea rlier  r epo r t  by t h e  C omm it tee of Inq u i ryintome at q uality(Pimenta report, 1 9 89) , elaboratedasa re a c ti ont ot heho r mon e crisis, we must  proceed t oa namendmento f t he  Treati es inst ituti n g the E uropean U nion as h av ingg e nui ne compete ncies in  matterso f pub l ic  heal th,  as we ll  as  theimmedi a tecreat ion of  a  publi c hea lt h protec tion institute or unit,  indep enden t o f farming  or ind ustrial i nter ests.Thisser ies  of e ven t s, wh ichi snot h ing m oret han a rep r od uct i o nof what hap p e n edat th e t i me ofthe'hormone crisis', is obviously t he r e s ult  of thefa ct that Europe  do es n ot reall yexist in th is field .T he Eu ropean  Parli ament,w i th this r epor t,has revea led  n o t onlywr on g ful be havi ou r butalso,a bove a ll, the incohere ncies a nd de f ici encie sin thes yste m of contr ols of thequalit y of  food  produc ts . That  is  w hy we arev oting infavou r of th is  rep ort  and t he m o t ion c losi ng  th is debate . 
P o is so n 
Mr  Pre siden t,  mydear coll e agues, a n e x planati on  of v ote is ve r y  short toexp laina l l the indi g nati o nI  felt  durin g thework of the  C ommitte e o f Inquiry.Mr Delors ,  Mr  S ante r, how h av e yo udar ed  neglect the he alth ofEuropean s on thi s p o int? I wasal ways taught: 'If i nd oubt,
imenta
In the_debate on_the research into the_case of'mad_cow_disease', it_was_made clear that:
1.from_the outset, the_Commission's strategy was the_wrong one, in_that_it attempted to minimise information and smother any discussion about the disease in order_to_avoid a_reaction_by_consumers if ever they found_out the facts and scientific_uncertainty. The_action by successive Commissioners was extremely wrong and_against_the interests of_public health.2.The Commission strategy decisively influenced the action of_the Member States and delayed the_adoption of effective_measures_in_the field of animal_health and scientific research into the_causes of the disease and its_propagation.3.The United Kingdom Government is clearly responsible_because of the way in which_it allowed the explosion of_the disease_and in particular the way_in which it_hid from_the other Member_States the true dimension of the_tragedy.4.The process demonstrated_the lack of operational effectiveness of_the_Commission farming structures_entrusted_with_controlling animal_health and its_effects_on public_health,_its lack of scientific thoroughness and_transparency._The Council and veterinary committees also were_guilty of incompetence, protecting_short-term_interests of certain lobbies_linked to animal production, in_particular the United Kingdom, to the_detriment of_the exercise_of their terms of reference.5.As has already been demanded in an_earlier report by the Committee of_Inquiry into meat quality_(Pimenta report,_1989),_elaborated as a_reaction_to the_hormone crisis, we must proceed to an_amendment of_the Treaties instituting the European Union_as having genuine competencies_in_matters of public health, as well_as the immediate creation of a_public health protection institute or_unit,_independent_of farming or industrial interests.This_series of events, which is nothing_more than a_reproduction of what happened at the time_of_the 'hormone crisis', is obviously the_result_of the fact that Europe does_not_really_exist in this field.
The European_Parliament, with this report, has revealed_not only wrongful behaviour but also, above all, the_incoherencies and deficiencies_in the system of controls_of_the_quality of food products. That is why we are voting_in favour_of this report_and the motion closing this debate.

Poisson
Mr President, my dear colleagues,_an explanation of vote is very short_to explain all the indignation I felt during the work of_the Committee of Inquiry.
Mr Delors, Mr Santer, how_have you dared neglect the health of_Europeans on this point?
I_was_always taught:'If in doubt,