Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur on the subject of feedingstuffs and hygiene, I closely followed the debate in two committees, not only in the lead committee – the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, but also in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which is advising it, and I would like to tell the House that, as rapporteur on feed hygiene, I basically welcome the Commission’s efforts to further improve food safety in the EU across the board.

From farm to table, the criteria for the production of our food should be very clearly defined. Quite apart from the harm to food, the food scandals over recent years – BSE, dioxin or nitrophene, for example – cost the European taxpayer a very great deal of money in terms of products recalled. That is why I very much welcome the fact that – as Commissioner Byrne has said – the cost of recalls will not, under the Regulation as submitted, be borne by the European Budget as a whole, but, and far more stringently, by the feed business operator, that it is to say the tax payers do not have to pay but the wrongdoers themselves.

That, I believe, is a reason why the regulation has to very precisely define what a ‘feed business operator’ is. I do not think there is any contention about the need for the requirement to take out insurance not to be imposed on farmers who produce cereals or other primary feedingstuffs. The recipients in the feed manufacturing industry are already able to analyse and categorise the barley, rye, maize, and so on with which they are supplied. On the basis of what I am constantly being told, I believe that the smallest growers of feedingstuffs, whether this be for supply to others or to feed their own farm animals, should be exempted from this Regulation, which would, however, come into effect if additives were to be mixed in, be it by the farmer himself, by the feed manufacturer, or by a mobile mill that comes to farms for that purpose. It cannot be acceptable for rules to be made, for the purpose of precautionary insurance cover, some of which it is in fact impossible to comply with. I still believe that what we demand politically should not ignore the realities of life, and that applies in particular to threshold values for undesirable substances when compounded, or transferred, and so on, which are increasingly based on what is analytically feasible. Let me reiterate that you have lost touch with the protection of health if you go about finding a lump of sugar in Lake Constance.

To an increasing extent, threshold values are being determined by reference to what modern analysis can do rather than to the potential risk, and we should concentrate on the actual danger posed to the consumers. Insurance companies have made it clear to a hearing with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that, in the absence of any clear definition of what is meant by ‘risk’, the costs involved in financial guarantees would become quite incalculable, and they would find it very difficult to estimate them. My appeal to the producers is that they should start with voluntary insurance. That is why, Commissioner, I, as rapporteur, have called in Article 8 for a feasibility study on binding and non-binding guarantees, and if we get one in 12 months’ time, then I am sure we will be able to look further ahead. This feasibility study should not only examine the national regulations currently in force, and the systems and practices relating to liability in the feed sector and similar areas at the national level, but should also set out recommendations for such a feasible and practicable guarantee system at EU level. So let me say once again, that we should demand politically only those things that are practically feasible.

Let me take this opportunity to extend warm thanks to all the Members of this House who have joined us in doing serious and constructive work on this topic, particularly, too, the representatives of the Commission, with whom we had really good discussions, and the Irish Presidency of the Council for its good cooperation and especially for its very realistic assessment of what is and is not feasible. I am on tenterhooks to see what happens next, and whether we will indeed be able to come to an agreement following first reading.