Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-383"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.16.3-383"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to thank Members for their interest in this subject and especially Mr Bakopoulos, the rapporteur, for his constructive work.
Certain azocolourants used in textile and leather pose the risk of cancer for consumers and workers, as has been said. Following an opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment confirming such risks, the Commission proposed in December of last year a directive restricting marketing and use of certain azocolourants which could pose a risk of cancer if they come into close contact with the skin.
The Commission proposal for a directive would introduce a ban on the use of certain azocolourants in textile and leather articles that come into close contact with the skin. The colourants concerned are xylidines which may release any of the 21 cancer-causing amines listed in the proposed directive. Furthermore, textile or leather articles dyed with these same xylidines may not be placed on the market. The test methods to be used to show compliance with the provisions are specified in the proposed directive.
The proposal provides not only for the protection of consumers' and workers' health. It also addresses an internal market issue. At the present time, the internal market is fragmented, as some Member States are already applying national bans. The proposed directive would harmonise the rules of Member States.
I would stress that the proposal is based on the results of independent studies on the risks of azocolourants and of the costs, benefits and trade effects of the proposed restrictions. It also takes account of the opinion of the competent Scientific Committee on Risks. I believe it is a proportionate measure.
The Commission is unable to accept those Parliament amendments which would extend this ban by replacing the proposed list of examples of product categories covered by an exhaustive list by covering articles other than those made of textiles and leather and by including other amides. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 of the Committee on the Environment are the ones I refer to.
The Commission feels this could not be justified on the basis of the current knowledge about the risks. Nor is the Commission able to accept amendments that would introduce a second testing method to show compliance with the provisions. This applies to Amendment No 5 of the Committee on the Environment. These would make it more difficult for suppliers, especially in the Third World, to show compliance as the method proposed by the Commission is the method most widely accepted and used. However, the Commission can accept that when available a more reliable standardised testing method could be introduced.
The Commission can accept in principle an exemption for handmade oriental carpets from the example list of product categories covered by the proposed directive as the risk from such carpets is likely to be low. However, the Commission cannot accept that the exemption is only temporary.
To summarise our point of view, we can accept Amendment No 1 of the Committee on the Environment. We must reject six amendments, namely Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Committee on the Environment. However, the Commission can in principle support parts of Amendment No 3. We wish to carry on the dialogue with Parliament. I am convinced that we can reach a constructive solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples