Skip to main content

Greens reject inadequate meat labelling proposals

Proposals labelled 'horsemeat'...
A motion tabled by Green MEPs to reject new rules proposed by the European Commission on origin labelling for meat was endorsed in a European Parliament vote today.
 
The Greens welcomed the outcome and called on the Commission to come forward with new and more comprehensive proposals, with Green food safety.
 
The Green Party's MEP for South East England, Keith Taylor, said:
 
"We're very pleased that a majority of MEPs have joined Greens in voting to send this inadequate legislation back to the Commission. After the horsemeat scandal in the UK people are increasingly concerned about the origin of the food they are eating.
 
We need full transparency in the food production chain, including country of birth labelling. Displaying this information is also an important tool for meat-eaters who want to choose to eat meat from animals that did not suffer the stress of long-distance transport, given the failure to reduce animal transport times in the EU.
The proposal from the Commission would provide only for the country of rearing and slaughter to be named on the label but not the country of birth. This must be redressed. While today's vote is not binding, we hope the Commission will heed the outcome and come forward with a new proposal providing for full transparency.

I know that many of my constituents are worried about where their food is coming from and I'll continue to push for changes in the way our food is labelled to ensure people have access to all the information they need to make informed decisions."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more