Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.3.3-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to join all the other Members who have congratulated Mrs Paulsen, both on the quality of her report and on her openness to the various amendments that have been tabled.
I would like to state at the outset that when we talk about undesirable substances and products, we immediately tend to think of dioxins and PCBs, but there are also heavy metals and, more generally, long-lasting organic pollutants which are by and large, as we know today, hormonal disrupters. In other words, even tiny amounts of these substances can have an effect. We must therefore adopt limit values, which are arrived at realistically, since our environment is already polluted by this type of substance, but which, at the same time, must also be as low as possible in order to limit the risks.
I find it quite strange that the Commission’s proposal does not specify any limit values for PCBs and that it proposes limit values for dioxins only in the case of citrus pulp, which is really quite bizarre. The truth is that this is the result of a disastrous event that occurred two years ago. Incredibly high levels of dioxin were found in citrus pulp from Brazil due to the drying process to which they were subjected. Where heavy metals are concerned, there are many inconsistencies. The value limit for fish meal, for example, is different to the level proposed for non-marine animal derived products.
On all these matters, my Group has tabled amendments, which, broadly speaking, have been accepted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy – to whom I am grateful – despite the vote against by the PPE-DE Members. I hope that the latter will change their minds for the plenary sitting, because I cannot see any arguments that could justify the inconsistencies in the Commission’s draft proposal.
I therefore think that, given the prevailing attitude in the House, we can face the vote with confidence and hope to achieve a majority, which will enable us to put our point of view across at second reading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples