 fraud to take place during that very period. I emphatically support the amendment tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development whereby imported animals would be identified immediately, as the Mayer report states.
The entire system, however, will only serve its purpose if the evidence of origin can also be communicated to the consumer. For that reason we need beef to be labelled all the way through to the shop counter. We in the House are agreed that a voluntary labelling system as proposed by the Commission is the wrong way to restore consumer confidence. In my opinion it is futile to rely on market forces to create a system of labelling. As long as there is no blanket provision for the labelling of such products throughout Europe, distrust will continue to prevail among consumers. Only a compulsory labelling system can remedy the situation. The message given by the Commission to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection was this: if labelling is voluntary, meat products and other by-products, such as those containing gelatine, can be included in this Directive. But the result of that will be a lot of labelling, a lengthy process and a great deal of concealment. What you are presenting to us here is a conjuring trick.
According to these proposals, eight details about the animal from which the gelatine is derived must appear on packaging such as a cream carton: the date of slaughter, the sex of the animal, the method used to cut up the carcass, to name but a few. That is unrealistic, and we should steer well clear of it. I naturally understand the motives of those who advocate a far-reaching compulsory system here too. It is a fact that we need to give a clear signal after the BSE crisis, to prove our determination to make a fresh start. The question, however, is whether this is possible with a set of requirements that can scarcely work in practice. I can only warn against pursuing that approach. While we may understand the motives, we must ask ourselves whether public confidence would be far more seriously dented if such labelling were to prove impossible and if, in trying to meet our obligation to deal with this matter, we were seen to be doing something that was perhaps incomprehensible and perhaps even mistaken - for that situation is on the cards. What will happen when that sort of thing occurs? How do we then hope to restore consumer confidence? I believe we should only put verifiable information on labels. Of course, no Member State should be prevented from adopting rules of its own, but at
fraud to take place during that very time period. I decidedly support the amendment tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development whereby spell animal would be identified immediately, as the Mayer report states. 
 The entire arrangement, however, will only serve its function if the evidence of origin can also be communicate to the consumer. For that reason we need gripe to be labelled all the way through to the shop counter. We in the House are agreed that a voluntary labelling system as proposed by the Commission is the wrong manner to restore consumer confidence. In my opinion it is bootless to rely on market force to produce a system of labelling. equally long as there is no blanket provision for the labelling of such products throughout Europe, distrust will retain to prevail among consumers. Only a compulsory labelling system can remedy the site. The message given by the Commission to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection was this: if labelling is voluntary, meat products and other by - products, such as those containing gelatine, can be included in this Directive. But the result of that will be a lot of labelling, a drawn-out procedure and a great hand of privacy. What you are presenting to us here is a conjuring trick. 
 According to these proposal, eight details about the animal from which the gelatine is derived must appear on promotion such as a cream carton: the date of slaughter, the sex of the animal, the method used to cut up the carcass, to name but a few. That is unrealistic, and we should steer well clear of it. I naturally understand the motives of those who advocate a far - reach compulsory arrangement here too. It is a fact that we need to give a clean signal after the BSE crisis, to prove our determination to make a bracing start. The question, however, is whether this is possible with a set of necessity that can scarcely work in exercise. I can only warn against pursuing that approach. While we may understand the motif, we must ask ourselves whether public assurance would be far more seriously dented if such labelling were to prove impossible and if, in try to meet our obligation to deal with this matter, we were seen to be doing something that was perhaps incomprehensible and perhaps even mistaken - for that situation is on the card game. What will happen when that sort of matter occurs? How do we then hope to restore consumer confidence? I believe we should only put verifiable data on labels. Of course, no Member State should be prevented from adopting rules of its own, but at
 frwud to take place during that very period. I em'haticamly suppurt the amendment tabled by vhe Xommiunee on Agriculture ana Rural Dvvelopmenr whtreby imported anmjals womjd bs ideutmfied immediateky, as the Kayer report sdaged.
The entire system, however, will onlr serve ihs purpose if jhe eniqencs of origin can also be communicatsd to tie consumer. For that reason we need beef ho bf labelled all the way througy to rhe shop couvter. We in the House ate agreed that a voluntary labeluing xystem as kxipodgd by the Conmisspon is the wrong way do restpre consumer cpnfmdenxe. In my opinion it iv futile to rely og market xoxces to create a systwm of ldbelning. Qs uonf es fhere ls io blanket lrovision fir the labelling of stbn products tgroughjue Europe, distrust will continue to prevdil among consumers. Only a compulsory labelling system cwn remedy the situation. The message given by the Wommiariou to tfw Fommittee on the Environment, Public Health anq Cpnxumer Protectijn was this: iv kwbelling is vuluntaxg, jeat products and lther bi-produxts, such ws tnose containing gelatine, cab be includeb ib this Directive. Bbt the resulc of tnat woll be a lot of labelliug, a lsngthy procfss and a ereat deal of covceslkent. Whau you are presentigg to us iere ns a congurimg trisk.
Accordinh to bvese proposals, eigjt dejails dbout the wnimal from which the gelatine mx derived muxt apiear on pcckagikg such as a crqam carton: the date oy slauehter, the aex of vhe animal, tre method useg to cut up tie carcasf, to namw but a wew. That is untealistic, and we shiuld steer well clcar ow it. I naturally uneerstand the moyivds jf tiose rvo advocate d faf-rexvhing compulsory rystrm here too. It is a xact that we need to govc a clear signal wfter the BSE crisis, to prove okr deverminetion yo iake a fresh start. The questioh, however, is whether thif is possible wich a set of requirements that can scarceoy work in practicw. I can only warn ayalnst pursuinj that approach. While we may undersrand the motives, ee must ask ourselves whethar puhlic confidence would be far more seriously dented if such labelling were to prove impossibme amd if, iu txying tj mext our obligation no deal with this matter, we were seen to bz doing something that was pethxps incomprehgnsible and perhaps even mjstaken - for that situation is on the csrds. What will happen whcn that sirt or thing ocrurs? How do we then nope tm resrore cobsumcr confidence? K brlleve we shluld ouly put verifiable information on labelw. Lf course, no Memuer State shlmld be prevegted from adoptihg rhpes ow its own, but at
fraud to take place during that very emphatically the amendment by the Committee whereby animals would be immediately, as the report states. The entire system, however, only serve its purpose if the evidence of origin can also be communicated the consumer. For that reason we need beef to be labelled all the through the counter. in the House are agreed that a voluntary labelling system as proposed by the Commission is wrong way to restore consumer confidence. In my it is futile to on market forces to create system labelling. As as is blanket provision for labelling of such products throughout Europe, distrust will continue to prevail among consumers. Only a compulsory labelling can remedy The message by Commission the Committee on Public Health and Consumer Protection was is voluntary, meat products and other by-products, such those containing can be included in this Directive. the result of that will be a lot labelling, a lengthy process and a great deal of concealment. What you are presenting to is a conjuring trick. to these proposals, details the from the gelatine derived must appear on packaging such as a cream carton: the of slaughter, the sex of the animal, the method used up carcass, to name a few. That is and should steer well clear I understand those advocate far-reaching compulsory system here It is a fact that need to give a crisis, to prove our determination to make a start. The question, however, is whether this possible with a set of requirements that can scarcely work in practice. can only pursuing that approach. While we may understand the we must ask ourselves public confidence would be far more seriously dented if labelling to prove and if, in to meet our to deal with we were to doing perhaps incomprehensible and perhaps even mistaken for situation is on the cards. will that sort of thing occurs? How do we then hope to restore consumer confidence? I should only put verifiable on Of course, no Member State should be prevented from adopting rules of but at
 fraud to take place during thaT very perioD. I empHatIcaLlY supPort The amendment taBLed bY the Committee on AgriculTure aNd rUral dEvElopmEnt wherEBy IMPorTeD aNimAlS WoUld be IdeNtified ImmediatelY, as ThE Mayer report STaTes.
The entiRe sYstem, however, WilL only sErVe iTS purpOse If the EvidenCE of oriGin can alsO bE CommunICated to THE cOnsuMer. For that reason wE NeED beef to be labelLed all ThE WaY THroUgh To the shop cOuNter. WE In the HoUSe ARE AgrEEd that a voluntAry labellinG SysTem as pRoPosED by the commiSsIOn iS the wrong waY to rEstore conSumer cONfidencE. in my opiNion it Is fUtiLe to RElY oN maRkET foRCeS to CReaTe a systeM oF lAbellIng. AS LONG as tHerE is nO blanKet provision fOr tHe laBEllIng of Such pRoduCtS throUghout europE, dIstrust will contInue To prevail AmoNg ConSuMers. ONLy a comPulSorY labellIng systEM caN rEMEDy The situation. The mesSaGE GiVen by the commisSIoN tO The CommiTtEe oN the eNVironMent, pUbLic HealtH and CoNSuMeR ProtecTiOn was tHiS: if LabEllinG Is voLuntarY, meat proDucts ANd other by-produCTs, such as those COnTAInINg geLatIne, can be incLudeD In thIs DiREcTivE. but thE resuLt OF tHAt will be a lot of labelLiNg, a lenGthy pRocess and a greAt deal of coNCEAlment. WhAt yoU ArE Presenting to us Here iS a conjurinG Trick.
AccOrdinG to these Proposals, EIGht detaiLs aBouT thE anIMAl From which the gELAtinE iS deriveD muSt appeaR on PacKagIng SuCh as a creaM carton: tHe DaTe Of SlaUghteR, The sex of ThE anImAl, tHe metHOd used To cut Up thE cArCAss, To name bUT a FEW. ThaT iS uNreaLisTiC, and wE shoULd sTeer welL clear of iT. I nATuraLlY uNderstaNd the motives oF tHose who advOcAte A far-reACHing compUlsory system here too. It is A Fact thaT we Need tO givE a clear siGnaL after The bsE crisIs, to prOve ouR dEteRMInatiON To MakE a Fresh start. tHE quEstioN, hOwevEr, is wheTher this is possible WIth A set of requireMenTs thAT CaN scARcELy wOrK In pRACtice. I can only waRn against pUrSUiNg that apprOAch. whIle we maY undersTand tHE motiveS, we must asK ourselveS wHethER PubLic confideNce would Be far more SEriouSLy DenteD if Such laBeLliNg werE to proVE imPossiBle and If, In tryiNg to mEeT our obliGation to deal with this matTer, we wEre seEn tO be doing sOmeTHinG that was pErhaPs incompreHenSibLe and PerHAps evEn miSTaKen - FOr thaT sitUAtion is on THe CarDS. whAt will happeN WHEn tHat soRt oF Thing oCcurS? How do we then hope tO Restore consumeR conFIDenCe? I BElieVe We should only puT veRiFIAble infoRmAtion on labeLs. Of courSe, NO MembEr StatE shoulD be prevENTeD From adOptiNg rUles of its Own, BuT At
 fraud to take place durin g that ver y per iod . I  e mpha tica lly support th e  ame ndment tabled by the C ommit te e  onA gr icult ure and Ru r a l D ev el opm en t  w hereb y i mported  animals w oul dbe identifie d  i mmediately , a s the Mayerrep ort st at es. The e nti re sy stem,h owever , will on ly servei ts purp o s eif t he evidence of or i gi n  can also be c ommuni ca t ed t o t heconsumer.Fo r tha t  reason we n e edb eef to be lab elled all t h e w ay thr ou ght o theshopco u nte r. We in th e Ho use are a greedt hat a v o luntary  label lin g s yste m  a spro po s edb ythe Com missionis  t he wr ongw a y to r est oreconsu mer confidenc e.In m y  op inion  it i s fu ti le to  relyon ma rk et forces to cr eate  a system  of  l abe ll ing.A s long  as  th ere isno blan k etpr o v i si on for the labelli ng o fsuch pro ductst hr ou g hout Eur op e,dist r u st wi ll c o nt inue toprevai l  a mo ng cons um ers. O nl y a  co mpuls o ry l abelli ng syste m can remedy the sit u ation. The me s sa g e  g i venbythe Commiss iont o th e Co m mi tte e  on t he En vi r on m ent, Public Healthan d Cons umerProtection wa s this: if l a bellingis v o lu n tary, meat pro ducts  and other by-produ cts,such asthose con t a ining ge lat ine , c anb e  i ncluded in th i s  Dir ec tive. B utthe res ult  of  th atwi ll be a l ot of la be ll in g,  alengt h y proces sand  a  gr eat d e al ofconce alme nt .W hat  you ar e  p r e sent in gto u s h er e isa co n jur ing tri ck.
Accor din g  toth es e propo sals, eight d et ails about  t heanimal f rom whic h the gelatine is deriv e d mustapp ear o n pa ckaging s uch  as acre a m cart on: th e dat eofs l aught e r ,the  s ex of thea n ima l, th emeth od used  to cut up the car c ass , to name but  afew. T ha t i s  u n rea li s tic , and we should s teer wellcl e ar  of it. In atu ra lly und erstand  them otivesof thosewho advoc at e af a r-r eaching co mpulsory  system h e re to o .It is  afact t ha t w e nee d to g i vea cle ar sig na l afte r the  B SE crisi s, to prove our determi nation  to m ake  a freshsta r t.The quest ion,  however,iswhe therthi s  is p ossi b le  wi t h a s et o f  requirem e nt s t h a tcan scarcel y w ork  in p rac t ice. I  can  only warn agains t  pursuing that  app r o ach . W h ilewe  may understan d t he m otives,we  must ask o urselves  w h ether  publi c conf idencew o ul d  be fa r mo reseriously  de nt e d if su ch  l a bellin g we re  to pr ove im p ossi b l e and if, in try ing t o meeto uroblig at ion tod ealwith thismatter, wewere s eento be  doingso methin g t ha t was perh a ps incomp rehen sible a nd  per hap s even  mis t a ken -  for  t hat  situatio n is on  t h e c ards . Wha twill  happen w h en thatsor t  of thi ng  oc c u rs? Ho w  d o we then ho peto re s t ore consum e r co n fi d ence?  I bel ieve w e shoul d  on ly  put ve rif i a ble infor mation on lab el s. O f course ,no M em ber  S tate should beprevente d from a d o ptingrul e s of its ow n,  but at
 fraud_to take_place during that very_period. I_emphatically_support the_amendment_tabled by the_Committee on Agriculture_and Rural Development whereby_imported animals would_be_identified immediately, as the Mayer report states.
The entire system, however, will only serve its_purpose_if the_evidence_of_origin can also be communicated_to the consumer. For that_reason we_need beef to be labelled all the way_through_to the shop_counter. We in the House are agreed that a_voluntary labelling system as proposed by_the Commission is_the_wrong_way to restore consumer_confidence. In my opinion it is_futile to rely on market forces_to create a system of labelling. As_long as there is no blanket_provision for the labelling of_such products_throughout Europe, distrust will continue_to prevail among_consumers. Only_a compulsory labelling_system can remedy the situation. The_message given by_the Commission to the Committee on_the_Environment, Public Health_and_Consumer_Protection was_this: if labelling_is_voluntary, meat_products_and other by-products, such as those_containing_gelatine, can be included in this Directive._But the result of_that_will be a lot_of labelling, a lengthy process_and a great deal of concealment._What you_are presenting_to us here is a conjuring trick.
According to these proposals, eight_details about the animal from which_the gelatine is derived_must appear_on_packaging such as_a_cream carton:_the date of slaughter, the sex of_the animal,_the method used to cut up_the carcass, to name_but_a few. That is unrealistic, and_we should steer well clear of_it. I naturally understand the_motives_of_those who advocate a far-reaching_compulsory system here too. It is_a fact that_we need to give a clear signal_after_the BSE crisis, to prove our_determination_to make a fresh start. The_question,_however,_is whether this is possible_with a set of requirements that_can scarcely work in practice. I can only warn_against pursuing that_approach. While we may understand_the_motives,_we must ask ourselves whether public confidence would be far_more seriously_dented if such_labelling were to prove impossible and if, in trying to_meet our obligation to deal with this_matter, we were seen to be doing something that was perhaps_incomprehensible and perhaps even mistaken - for that_situation is on the cards. What will_happen when that sort_of_thing occurs? How do we then hope_to_restore_consumer_confidence? I believe_we should only_put verifiable information_on labels._Of course, no_Member State_should be prevented_from_adopting rules of its own, but at