Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.7.1-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like everyone else in this debate I should like to congratulate Mr Lannoye. He and I sometimes cross swords on the issue of other nutritious additives, but in this case we are looking very much at the essence of the burden of proof before this list is yet further extended. He has done a service to the committee and also to this House by pointing out that this procedure appears to be almost always one-way.
We need to hear from the Commission on two points of principle: the first is whether the procedures themselves need review as the Commission spokesman suggested in the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy; secondly, whether there is a more efficacious way of removing additives as well as bringing them into effect.
It seems to us that the list is getting larger and that the burden of proof must remain with those, be they in Member States, in the Commission or in the Scientific Committees, who want us to adapt these things. I am prepared to accept that some of these are harmless. Indeed, the committee and even Mr Lannoye were prepared to accept E949 and E650.
However, whilst I would not claim to be an expert – as no other member of the committee would – on the issue of which of the various propellant sprays can safely be used, enough doubts were raised in committee, not least when we heard from the representative of the Commission, about the propellant sprays themselves. These are apparently needed by manufacturers because they produce an equal spray of fat on the utensil concerned.
One of them is there only for professional use. The other two are regarded as safe for all. We all want to look again at this issue and see why they have been chosen and whether we might now hold back any clearance of them, at least until the review which is suggested has been carried through.
With regard to the two amendments, my Group, whilst it supports the spirit of what Mr Lannoye proposes in Amendment No 1, would not go as far as this to write the precautionary principle itself into this particular directive. It does not seem to us to be the right place for it. We would prefer to strike out recital 5 and we shall so vote. This is the place to discuss the burden of proof rather than the overall principle of precaution.
Finally, as regards Amendment No 2 in the name of my Group, this is purely a drafting amendment to remove references to the codecision procedure. But its meaning remains crystal clear. We do not think these additions should be made unless it can be demonstrated that the consumer benefits. At the end of the line it is for the consumer that this is being done. It is being done in the consumer's name. For that reason we commend Amendment No 2."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples