Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-085"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001026.2.4-085"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-26-Speech-4-0862
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". In summary, the resolution on endocrine disrupters adopted a moment ago illustrates that far too little is known about the harmful effects, that the European Parliament would like to see more research done and that measures need to be taken on the basis of the precautionary principle. Although I have voted for the resolution, I would like to make a few minor observations. I share the rapporteur’s opinion that the arguments in this discussion must be based on fact. However, I do not share his view that the measures need to reflect the concern among the public. The average citizen will in most cases be unable to make an adequate risk assessment. In modern society, with all its consumer goods, such as appliances, we need materials and substances with very specific characteristics. Everyone, or nearly everyone, accepts and uses these products. The substances and materials in these products, however, do carry a risk. As everyone knows, life is full of risks and uncertainties. The trick is to deal with these risks and uncertainties in a judicious manner. Science has still not proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is a direct link between these chemical substances and changes in human hormone levels. That does not detract from the fact that I am delighted with the interest in this topic. The possible effects of these substances are not insignificant. If these chemical substances really cause an increase in certain types of cancer, reduce fertility or threaten unborn life, something has to be done about it. Human life is worth protecting. Out of precautionary considerations, it is useful to be clear about these substances. Pursuant to the precautionary principle, the possible harmfulness of dangerous substances, materials and products should be given scientific substance. Both restriction and acceptance of a certain risk are important in this context. I do not much like the idea of simply banning substances in a bid to rule out every possible risk. This opens us up to the risk of a witch hunt being unleashed on all kinds of substances without any scientific basis. The reversal of the burden of proof is not appropriate either. To apply the precautionary principle correctly, we also need to know what the harmful effects are of any of the alternatives."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph