Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-368"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Precautionary principle2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001213.15.3-368"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-13-Speech-3-3692
lpv:speaker	lp:Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; EMPL (2000-03-07--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the environment and public health are like a complex machine with many functions that we monitor and check in order to be able to intervene to make sure that things do not go wrong. The machine has a great number of warning lights; if one of these lights red, it tells us that there is something wrong and that we must intervene immediately if the machine is not to break down. We must not wait until several or all of the warning lights are lit. This is the precautionary principle in practice. However, this is not how it works in the case of public health. Here we wait until all the warning lights are lit before intervening, and this is also the problem with the European Commission’s communication. In my opinion, the precautionary principle is quite simply about the law and not least the duty to intervene with sufficient and necessary resources on the basis of a suspicion or a probable suspicion that a substance or a process may cause irreparable damage to the environment and health. Those who cannot live without the substance or process in question must demonstrate that it can exist without resulting in permanent damage. Amongst other things, the Commission proposes that the benefits and costs associated with action or failure to act in an area are to be investigated. However, this was precisely what was done in connection with the BSE scandal and that was why the catastrophe hit England and now also France, which had been given all the signals that BSE was present and still did not want to apply the precautionary principle. An analysis of the pros and cons is an absurd concept bearing in mind the idea behind the precautionary principle, namely to be able to react to a product we fully know all the advantages and disadvantages. The same applies to the Commission’s requirement of a thorough risk analysis beforehand. After all, if we know all the risks, costs, etc., then there is no for the precautionary principle. I also think that far too much emphasis is placed on the assessment of a matter by experts, toxicologists and economists. Risk management and enforcement of the precautionary principle are not the responsibility of experts, but a general political responsibility and matter and the Commission’s communication does not give politicians sufficient incentive to live up to this responsibility."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"before"1 "need"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph