Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.7.1-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lannoye for his report on the Commission proposal to amend European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. The Commission considers that Directive 95/2 needs to be adapted in the light of recent technical and scientific developments. Our proposal is based on three main principles. Approved additives are safe and present no risk to public health. Safety issues are evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food. Food additives are only permitted if it is demonstrated that there is a technological need for them and consumers are not misled and will benefit from having a choice of new products with better quality.
I was also asked why the Commission does not propose the deletion of food additives instead of always adding new ones to the positive list. When the Commission has the information that an additive is no longer used, it proposes the withdrawal of the substance from the positive list. For instance, in the next revision of this directive, the Commission services will propose the deletion of calcium hydrogen carbonate and magnesium carbonate.
Mrs Thyssen made reference to the fact that there was insufficient information in the Commission document, and I take account of that.
There is something to be said for what you say in relation to this. I propose to take steps when further Commission proposals are made in this regard. Perhaps some greater clarity might be contained in the document, giving a broader justification for such inclusion from a consumer benefit point of view. Perhaps some more technical information might justifiably be included also.
Mr Lund suggested that the colouring agents are added to unprocessed food. That is a factually incorrect statement. No colouring agents are added to unprocessed food at all. He also asked if some consideration should not be given to the consumer survey that took place in December on nitrates. I have been informed that this is under active consideration and discussions are taking place with Member States in relation to that particular survey.
Mr Whitehead asked me if we should give some consideration to a more effective way of removing additives. I refer you to the earlier part of my answer when I said that two particular additives will be removed from the list, but I will seek some further information from my service as to what procedure is followed and what information is available to Members of Parliament so there can be doubt as to what procedures are involved. Not only Mr Whitehead but also some other speakers made reference to this. Obviously there is some concern that there is not enough information about this. I will certainly make further inquiries so as to be in a position to give further information to Members in due course.
Several of the additives now proposed for use have been temporarily authorised by some Member States. Provided that the opinions of the Scientific Committee are respected, technological need is demonstrated and consumers are not misled, Community legislation should recognise the experience of the Member States in the use of these additives. For these reasons the Commission is not in a position to accept Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently take into account the opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food and the technological need that exists in some Member States. If these amendments were adopted, some perfectly safe foodstuffs would disappear from the shelves of food stores in certain Member States.
As to the first amendment, the application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate as has been mentioned by a number of speakers this evening. The safety of the food additives we are discussing has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food. This is the basis on which the Community legislators have approved the use of additives in the past and it is the basis on which the Commission now proposes the authorisation of new food additives. Therefore, the Commission is not in favour of the first amendment. The Commission does not believe that Amendments Nos 2 and 6 are necessary or appropriate in respect of this directive. The Commission is sponsoring this directive on the basis of the well-established criteria that the additives in question are safe, as evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food, that there is a technological need and that consumers are not misled and will benefit from having a choice of more products with better quality.
However, it is my own belief that such an amendment could be appropriate in Framework Directive 89/107 of 21 December 1998, and that document is referred to in the annex to the White Paper at entry No 42. It is Mr Whitehead's amendment in relation to No 2 that has given me the opportunity to consider this particular aspect and whether there is a need for raising the standard in this area in a particular manner. I have come to the conclusion that he is correct and that some effort should be made to deal with this. But I think that it is probably best to do so in the framework directive rather than in this particular directive. That would have more universal application and would achieve the ends that all of us want to achieve for consumers. So when we come to the point of amending that particular directive, i.e. 89/107, I will be giving serious consideration to that suggestion and to that amendment put forward by Mr Whitehead.
There are a number of individual points that have been mentioned that I would like to draw attention to and see if I can respond to the questions raised. First of all, in relation to sodium alginate, a number of speakers mentioned the fact that this particular proposal would have the effect of misleading consumers because it was designed for the purpose of keeping the carrots fresh. That is not strictly speaking a correct analysis of the purpose of this particular additive. The carrots are pre-packed, so they are labelled and therefore the consumer knows that an additive is being used.
The purpose of the additive is as a firming agent rather than making the food look, or suggesting that it is, in fact fresher than it is. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is justifiable.
Mr Lannoye mentioned the application of the precautionary principle. I have dealt with that very briefly but let me just say, I respectfully agree with a number of the contributors this evening on the proper place for the precautionary principle. I believe that the precautionary principle is inappropriate in the circumstances that we are considering this evening, whereas it is appropriate in circumstances where there is an absence of science. But in this particular case, the Scientific Committee has examined the situation, it has given its opinion that these additives are safe.
I agree with another contributor earlier, that I have some anxieties about putting forward our views in place of the scientific opinions expressed by scientists. I would have strong reserves about approaching a particular problem in that way and therefore we should give full regard to the opinions of Scientific Committees. Our decisions ought to be science-based. To supplant the opinions of scientists with our own opinions is a dangerous precedent in my view and certainly this is not the appropriate place for the precautionary principle.
I was also asked why does the Commission propose the use of the additive E467 that is alleged to contain dangerous impurities such as ethylene oxide. I should say that the impurity of ethylene oxide did not prevent the Scientific Committee from concluding that this cellulose is safe for use. Limits for impurities will be set in the specifications that are drawn up as a Commission directive after the additive is permitted for use."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples