Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.5.1-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mrs Roth-Behrendt put it concisely. The seventh amendment is a backwards step – we all know that. It is not even the status quo. But to look at some of the protestations of the cosmetics industry you would think that this directive is something new. It is not. It has been with us for many years, and for many years we hoped and believed that an effective test ban, conditional on a phased introduction of alternative testing, was on the way. There is a phrase in the Bible that colleagues will know: ‘Hope long deferred maketh the heart sick’. If we are heartsick today it is because of the nature of that deferral. Those who deferred our hopes should listen now.
Many in the industry not only accept the need to end animal testing, but have also put their own resources to that end. I have certainly benefited from discussions with them. It is true also that, to follow Mr Nisticò, some of the experiments that can be put in place involve human volunteers, human and animal tissues, and
testing. The development of these over the last few years has been a major step forward. But now the industry has to demonstrate that it has a realistic timetable for developing alternative tests. It is simply not good enough to say, as this glossy publication does, that you cannot set these timetables because that would be the equivalent of announcing the date for a cure for cancer. That is not the case at all. We are looking here at the way in which they might in this decade get to the point we and the public desire, and they will only do it with the looming incentive of a marketing ban.
Equally, if we detail the allergens present in these fragrances, they are not being driven out of the market. It is a necessary precaution which should not threaten a single valid product. We have done it elsewhere, at great gain to human health. All the more reason to do it for products which, as I fully accept, contribute to human happiness and wellbeing. We shall all be happier still when we can use them with a clear conscience, knowing that unnecessary animal testing has gone for good."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples