 the infrastructures presupposed by this regulation and the one related to it concerning the recognition and registration of the animals, indicate the severity of the crisis brought about by BSE. Yet, other interventions and measures will be needed to restore the confidence of consumers. It will be very difficult to do this, because that confidence is constantly being shaken by technological development and by the pursuit of profit. The one makes it possible, and the other makes it necessary to produce new products or modify traditional ones, while consumers are less and less able to know what it is that they are eating or drinking. The real restoration of confidence will come when there is a convincing policy to eradicate BSE at the level of production. The regulation we are debating here merely intervenes at the level of trade and attempts to give consumers more and useful information about the origin and production conditions of meat and meat products, hoping in that way to help the market settle down. However, the regulation was drawn up under conditions of urgent need, and for that reason it has gaps and omissions which we are trying to correct with the amendments we have tabled. The regulation provides that in future beef and beef-based products can be placed on the market if accompanied by a label recording information about their origin. For that to be possible, there must first be a regulation on the recognition and registration of animals, involving an information system, and then labelling can follow. The regulation's problems are as follows: firstly, the labelling system proposed is in principle optional. If we were to accept that provision, we would be led towards the creation of two markets: one with labelled products, which would inspire greater confidence and would have higher prices, and one with unlabelled and somewhat suspect products, demand for which would be less and whose prices would therefore be lower. That solution appears easy and could be implemented straight away, but it would achieve nothing. It reassures consumers artificially, but without guaranteeing that there will not in due course be people who, being less well informed and poorer, have been desensitized by publicity and will choose products which are considered riskier but are cheaper. I think a better though still temporary solution is the compulsory labelling of all beef products, including industrially processed ones. Of course, that solution has negative aspects, it requires huge administrative intervention, measures and controls, and it would be very costly. However, it responds better to the scale of the crisis of confidence we are facing. A second problem is that labelling is envisaged for meat and meat-based products
the infrastructures presupposed by this regulation and the one related to it refer the realization and registration of the animals, bespeak the asperity of the crisis brought about by BSE. Yet, early interventions and measures will be needed to regenerate the confidence of consumers. It will be very unmanageable to do this, because that confidence is constantly being shaken by technological growth and by the pursuit of profit. The one makes it possible, and the other make it necessary to produce new products or change traditional ones, while consumers are less and less able to acknowledge what it is that they are eating or drink. The real restoration of confidence will come when there is a convincing policy to eliminate BSE at the level of production. The regulation we are debating here merely intervenes at the level of trade and attempts to give consumers more and useful information about the origin and production conditions of meat and meat products, hop in that way to help the marketplace sink down. However, the regulation was drawn up under conditions of pressing need, and for that rationality it has gaps and omission which we are trying to correct with the amendments we have tabled. The regulation provides that in future gripe and beef - based products can be placed on the market if accompanied by a label recording information about their beginning. For that to be possible, there must first be a regulation on the recognition and registration of animal, involving an information system, and then labelling can follow. The regulation's problems are as follows: firstly, the labelling system nominate is in principle optional. If we were to accept that planning, we would be led towards the creation of two markets: one with labelled products, which would prompt greater assurance and would have higher price, and one with unlabelled and somewhat fishy products, demand for which would be less and whose prices would therefore be lower. That solution appears easy and could be implemented straight away, but it would achieve nothing. It reassures consumers artificially, but without guarantee that there will not in due course be multitude who, being less well informed and poorer, have been desensitized by promotion and will choose products which are considered riskier but are cheaper. I think a better though still temporary solution is the compulsory labelling of all beef products, including industrially process one. Of naturally, that solution own damaging aspects, it requires huge administrative interposition, measures and controls, and it would be very costly. However, it react well to the scale of the crisis of confidence we are facing. A second trouble is that labelling is envisaged for meat and meat - based products
 thf infrastructures presupkosed by this regolqtion end the one relxted to it concerning the rerognution and registration of tfe animald, indicare tie severity of tis crisis broufmt abmnt by BSE. Yet, ojher intervettions and meavufed will be needed to restore the considence ov consumers. It wilk be bvrn difficult to do this, because tgat conhidence is consyantly being shaken by tecjnollgical development and by the purfyit of profig. The one makes it posaible, and the other makes it nezessaxy to produxe nea products oc modisy traditional ones, fhile cpnsumers are lcss aid lwss able to know what it is that they ate eating mr drinking. The reao eestotatiot of xonwidtncx wjll cole xhen there js a convinxing policy to eradocwnr BSE at the level os production. The regulation we are debauing gere merely intervenes qt the level of trade and atteipts to give consumers more and useful informatiot abont tht irigiv ajd production conditions of meat and meat proqhcus, moping in that wcy to help the msrney settle down. Fowevex, tge regulation was frawn uk undee conditijns pf urgent need, and for that reason it hcs taps and omissions which we axe tryong tp correct with the amenbments we have tahled. The ddgulation providds nhat in future beef and beef-bafed produrts ccn be plxced on thq market iv accompanied by a label recotding hnformatioj about their origin. For that to be possible, jhese kust firft be a regulation on the recognntion anb regirtration or animans, involvind an informathln system, anv then lafellung xan foluuw. The regulatoon's problems are aw follows: firstly, bhe lxgelling system 'xokowed is in prinvipue jpnioial. Is we were to dcceot gnat pfovision, we doulc be led towards the creztion of two markeys: one wity labellqd products, wnich would inspire greaver coifidenve wnd would have higher prices, ahd one wihh mnlabelled anq sonewhat suspeet products, demand for which would be lews and whose pricgs would therefore be kower. That xolutyon appeass easy and could be implemented stralght away, but it would achieee nohhing. It reassures consumers artificially, but without guaranteeing that tyere wmlj not in dus coirse te 'eople rho, uemng less well infprmed and poorer, have been deseisitized bf 'ublicity and will choose procuzts which are considered riskier but zre chealer. I think a better though stikl temporary solution is the compulsody labvmlmng of all beef prodicts, iucludibg induwtriwlly processea omed. Of courde, tiat solution has negative aspects, ir requurfs huge administcative interyektion, jeasurgs and controls, ahd if woula be very cosyly. However, it responds better to nhe scale of the xgisis of confodencg we are facing. A second psoblem is that labelling is envisaged for meat and jeat-based products
the infrastructures presupposed by this regulation and related it concerning recognition and registration severity the crisis brought by BSE. Yet, interventions and measures will be needed restore the confidence of consumers. It will be very difficult to do this, that confidence is constantly being shaken by technological development and by the pursuit profit. one it and the other makes it necessary to produce new products or modify traditional ones, while consumers less and less able to know what it that they are eating drinking. The real restoration of will when there a policy eradicate BSE at level of production. The regulation we are debating here merely intervenes at the level of trade and to give and useful about origin production conditions of meat products, hoping in that way market settle down. However, the regulation was drawn under conditions urgent need, and for that reason has gaps and omissions which we are trying correct with the amendments we have tabled. The regulation provides that in future beef and can be placed on market if accompanied a recording about origin. For to be possible, there must first be a regulation on the and registration of animals, involving an information system, and then follow. regulation's problems are follows: firstly, the labelling proposed in principle optional. If to that be towards creation of two markets: with labelled products, which would greater confidence and would with unlabelled and somewhat suspect products, demand for would be less and whose prices would be lower. That solution appears easy and could be implemented straight away, it would It reassures consumers artificially, but without guaranteeing that will not in due be people who, being less well informed and poorer, been by publicity will choose products are considered riskier are cheaper. I better though temporary is of all beef products, including industrially ones. course, that solution has negative it administrative intervention, measures and controls, and it would be very costly. However, it responds better scale of the crisis confidence are facing. A second problem is that labelling is envisaged for meat products
 the infrastructures presuppOsed by this RegulAtiOn aNd The oNe reLated to it conceRNing The recognition and regisTratiOn OF the ANiMals, iNdicate THe SEVerItY oF thE cRIsIs broUghT about bY BSE. Yet, othEr iNtErventions anD MeAsures will Be nEeded to restoRe tHe confIdEncE Of conSumErs. It Will be VEry difFicult to dO tHIs, becaUSe that cONFiDencE is constantly beinG ShAKen by technologIcal deVeLOpMENt aNd bY the pursuiT oF profIT. The one MAkES IT poSSible, and the otHer makes it nECesSary to PrOduCE new prOductS oR ModIfy traditioNal oNes, while cOnsumeRS are lesS And less Able to KnoW whAt it IS tHaT thEy ARe eATiNg oR DriNking. The ReAl RestoRatiON OF ConfIdeNce wIll coMe when there is A coNvinCIng PolicY to erAdicAtE BSE aT the leVel of PrOduction. The reguLatiOn we are deBatInG heRe MerelY IntervEneS at The leveL of tradE And AtTEMPtS to give consumers moRe AND uSeful infOrmatiON aBoUT the origIn And ProdUCTion cOndiTIoNs of meat And meaT PrOdUcts, hopInG in thaT wAy tO heLp the MArkeT settlE down. HowEver, tHE regulation was DRawn up under coNDiTIOnS Of urGenT need, and for That REasoN it hAS gAps ANd omiSsionS wHIcH We are trying to correcT wIth the AmendMents we have taBled. The regULATion provIdes THaT In future beef anD beef-Based produCTs can be pLaced On the marKet if accoMPAnied by a LabEl rEcoRdiNG InFormation abouT THeir OrIgin. For ThaT to be poSsiBle, TheRe mUsT first be a RegulatiOn On ThE rEcoGnitiON and regiStRatIoN of AnimaLS, involVing aN infOrMaTIon System, aND tHEN labElLiNg caN foLlOw. The ReguLAtiOn's probLems are as FolLOws: fIrStLy, the laBelling system PrOposed is in PrIncIple opTIOnal. If we Were to accept that provisiON, we woulD be Led toWardS the creatIon Of two mArkETs: one wIth labElled PrOduCTS, whicH WOuLd iNsPire greateR COnfIdencE aNd woUld have Higher prices, and one WIth Unlabelled and SomEwhaT SUsPecT PrODucTs, DEmaND For which would be Less and whoSe PRiCes would thERefOrE be loweR. That soLutioN Appears Easy and coUld be implEmEnteD STraIght away, buT it would Achieve noTHing. IT ReAssurEs cOnsumeRs ArtIficiAlly, buT WitHout gUarantEeIng thaT therE wIll not in Due course be people who, beiNg less Well iNfoRmed and poOreR, HavE been deseNsitIzed by publIciTy aNd wilL chOOse prOducTS wHicH Are coNsidERed riskieR BuT arE CHeAper. I think a BETTer ThougH stILl tempOrarY solution is the comPUlsory labellinG of aLL BeeF prODuctS, iNcluding industRiaLlY PRocessed OnEs. Of course, tHat solutIoN Has neGative AspectS, it requIREs HUge admInisTraTive interVenTiON, measurEs AnD ControLs, anD iT would Be very COstlY. hOwever, it responds BetteR TO the sCAle Of the CrIsis of cONfidEnce we are fAcing. A seconD problEm is That lAbellinG iS envisAgeD fOr meat and mEAt-based prOductS
 the infrastructures presu pposed bythisreg ula ti on a nd t he one related to i t concerning the recog nitio na nd r e gi strat ion oft he a nim al s,  in di c at e the  se verityof the cri sis  b rought about by  BSE. Yet,  ot her interven tio ns and  m eas u res w ill  be n eededt o rest ore the c on f idence of cons u m er s. I t will be very di f fi c ult to do this , beca us e  t h a t c onf idence isco nstan t ly bein g  s h a k enb y technologic al developm e ntand by  t hep ursuit  of p ro f it.  The one ma kesit possib le, an d  the ot h er make s it n ece ssa ry t o  p ro duc en ewp ro duc t s o r modify  t ra ditio nalo n e s , wh ile  con sumer s are less an d l essa ble  to k now w hatit  is t hat th ey ar eeating or drink ing.  The real  re st ora ti on of confid enc e w ill com e whent her ei s aconvincing policyto e ra dicate B SE att he  l e vel of p ro duc tion . The r egul a ti on we ar e deba t in ghere me re ly int er ven esat th e  lev el oftrade an d att e mpts to give c o nsumers morea nd u se f ul i nfo rmation abo ut t h e or igin an d p r oduct ion c on d it i ons of meat and mea tproduc ts, h oping in that  way to he l p the mark et s e tt l e down. Howeve r, th e regulati o n was dr awn u p undercondition s of urgen t n eed , a ndf o rthat reason i t hasga ps andomi ssionswhi chweare  t rying tocorrectwi th  t he  am endme n ts we ha ve  ta bl ed.  Ther egulat ion p rovi de st hat  in fut u re b eefan dbeef -ba se d pro duct s  ca n be pl aced on t hem arke tif  accomp anied by a la be l recordin ginf ormati o n  about t heir origin. For that t o  be pos sib le, t here  must fir stbe a r egu l ationon the  reco gn iti o n  andr e gi str at ion of ani m a ls,  invo lv ingan info rmation system, an d  th en labellingcan  fol l o w.  Th e  r e gul at i on' s problems are as  follows:fi r st ly, the la b ell in g syste m propo sed i s  in pri nciple op tional. I fwe w e r e t o accept t hat prov ision, we would be  ledtow ards t he  cr eatio n of t w o m arket s: one  w ith la belle dproducts , which would inspire g reater  conf ide nce and w oul d  ha ve higher  pri ces, and o newit h unl abe l led a nd s o me wha t  susp ectp roducts,d em and f or  which woul d b e l ess a ndw hose p rice s would therefore be lower. That  sol u t ion  ap p ears  e asy and couldbeim p l ementedst raight away , but it  w o uld a chieve  nothi ng. Itr e as s ures c onsu mer s artific ial ly ,  but wi th ou t  guara ntee in g that  there will n ot in due course  be p e o ple w h o,being  l ess wel l  inf ormed andpoorer, hav e been  des ensit ized by  p ublici tyan d will cho o se produc ts wh ich are  c onsi der ed ris kier b ut ar e ch ea per . I think a  b e tt er tho ughstill  t empo rary solu t ion is t hec ompulso ry  la b e llingo fa l l beef pro duc ts, i n c luding ind u stri a ll y  proc essedones.Of cour s e,th at solu tio n has negat ive aspec t s,it  req uires hu ge  adm in ist ra tive interventi on, meas ures and c ontrol s,a nd i t  would  b e very costl y. Ho we v er, itr e spo nds bet t ertothe  sca leof t h e crisis of confidence w e ar e fac i ng.  A se condpr oblem is that  labelli n g is envisage d for meat andm eat - base d p r od uc ts
 the_infrastructures presupposed_by this regulation and_the one_related_to it_concerning_the recognition and_registration of the_animals, indicate the severity_of the crisis_brought_about by BSE. Yet, other interventions and measures will be needed to restore the_confidence_of consumers._It_will_be very difficult to do_this, because that confidence is_constantly being_shaken by technological development and by the pursuit_of_profit. The one_makes it possible, and the other makes it necessary_to produce new products or modify_traditional ones, while_consumers_are_less and less able_to know what it is that_they are eating or drinking. The_real restoration of confidence will come when_there is a convincing policy to_eradicate BSE at the level_of production._The regulation we are debating_here merely intervenes_at the_level of trade_and attempts to give consumers more_and useful information_about the origin and production conditions_of_meat and meat_products,_hoping_in that_way to help_the_market settle_down._However, the regulation was drawn up_under_conditions of urgent need, and for that_reason it has gaps_and_omissions which we are_trying to correct with the_amendments we have tabled. The regulation_provides that_in future_beef and beef-based products can be placed on the market if_accompanied by a label recording information_about their origin. For_that to_be_possible, there must_first_be a_regulation on the recognition and registration of_animals, involving_an information system, and then labelling_can follow. The regulation's_problems_are as follows: firstly, the labelling_system proposed is in principle optional._If we were to accept_that_provision,_we would be led towards_the creation of two markets: one_with labelled products,_which would inspire greater confidence and would_have_higher prices, and one with unlabelled_and_somewhat suspect products, demand for which_would_be_less and whose prices would_therefore be lower. That solution appears_easy and could be implemented straight away, but it_would achieve nothing._It reassures consumers artificially, but_without_guaranteeing_that there will not in due course be people who,_being less_well informed and_poorer, have been desensitized by publicity and will choose products_which are considered riskier but are cheaper._I think a better though still temporary solution is the compulsory_labelling of all beef products, including industrially processed_ones. Of course, that solution has negative_aspects, it requires huge_administrative_intervention, measures and controls, and it would_be_very_costly._However, it responds_better to the_scale of the_crisis of_confidence we are_facing. A_second problem is_that_labelling is envisaged for meat and meat-based products