Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.7.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now going to discuss a second aspect of the food safety issue. The fact is, over the years, more and more additives have been used in foodstuffs, in connection, in particular, with the industrialisation of food production. When I say ‘more and more’, you only have to look at the figures. A survey of the current situation shows that 307 additives are authorised within the European Union. We are effectively working with a positive list. All the additives given on this list are authorised; any not included are, by the same token, prohibited. That makes 307 authorised additives, only 163 of which may be considered as totally harmless, indicating that many others are either suspect or actually cause food safety-related problems. I am thinking in particular of the problem of allergies.
What is being proposed today? Not reducing the list, but extending it a little further since the Commission has made nine proposals, either to add certain additives to the list or to extend the uses of some already authorised additives.
In principle, there are three criteria governing the acceptance of a new additive: technological need, usefulness for the consumer and harmlessness. It must be acknowledged that, in the course of time, technological need has always been the predominant criterion. It is not that the criterion of harmlessness has been ignored, just that it has been modified slightly over time. It is common knowledge today that the precautionary principle was practically unheard of seven or eight years ago, whereas today it has come to the fore. The situation must therefore be reviewed from a different perspective to the one we took a few years ago.
I therefore find it quite astounding – as indeed does the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy – that a number of additives are being proposed for inclusion, for which we do not have assurances. Of the Commission’s nine proposals, we think that five are suspect for one reason or another. I shall mention them quickly. Firstly, an additive called sodium alginate is proposed for use on grated carrots. The usefulness for the consumer is that the grated carrots will appear to be ‘fresh’ even though they are actually not. This is quite clear, just from reading the relevant literature. As for the risks to the consumer, apparently these are not very significant, but the Scientific Committees which have looked into the matter do consider that the laxative effect of this additive is likely to combine with other problems of the same type. It is not, therefore, necessarily to be recommended. In consideration of the fact that this involves deception of the consumer rather than improving the situation for the consumer, our opinion is that this additive must not be accepted.
There is another additive which presents a huge problem, E467. I will refrain from giving its official name because it is far too long and complex, and I think it would be even harder to translate. E467 is problematic in terms of assessing its harmlessness, because it contains extremely dangerous impurities. One such impurity is ethylene oxide, which the relevant scientific authorities recognise is a proven carcinogen. We must consequently reject this one too.
Finally, three other additives are proposed as propellants. These are inflammable gases – butane, isobutane and propane. In view of the fact that there are alternative solutions – the technological need is therefore a real one, but it can be fulfilled by other additives – and that, in addition, after cooking, after the use of these products, the residues in the form of organic products are not, a priori, harmless, we consider that these additives cannot be approved either.
That is a brief overview of the problem. As far as we are concerned there are five additives which should not be authorised, and the four others do not seem to present any problem, based on a reading of the scientific literature about them. As we are not absolutist, we consider that they may be accepted.
I think it is important, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to reverse the trend in the current legislation on additives. The Commission has announced a radical revision of the directive. I think we would be sending out a positive message if we indicated that we do not wish to maintain the attitude which has dominated for years, allowing the number of additives to grow and grow, even though we know nothing about their synergistic effects in combination. Quite the contrary, we think we should move towards a much more limited list, and remove the most suspect additives from the list. I have counted around fifty of these myself. Others should be used far less widely. I am thinking, for example, of nitrites, nitrates and sulphites which are known to present proven health problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples