Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.5.1-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the key and emotive issue regarding this debate and this directive is how to protect the health of children and adults while ensuring the phasing out of animal testing within a reasonable timescale. As we know, cosmetics, like chemicals, pesticides and medicines, have to go through rigorous tests before they can be placed on the market for human use. A cosmetic manufacturer is legally obliged to ensure that its products are safe, both for normal use and for foreseeable misuse. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetics sets guidelines on the sort of tests that should be carried out and these include animal tests. The key is to get the test and any alternatives to existing tests into Annex 5 of the dangerous substances directive.
When we seek, as we do, an end to animal tests, we have to take account of human interests too. It would be horrendous if a child were to suffer or even die because an inadequately tested product was allowed on the market; and we have to remember that items such as toothpaste and medicated shampoos are classified as cosmetics. The industry, to be fair, has made giant strides in reducing both the number of animal tests and the number of animals used in such tests. In some cases they have replaced the test; in some they have refined it to reduce suffering; and in some they have reduced the number of animals used. To achieve an alternative takes up to ten years. Agreeing a research project, funding it, undertaking it and then having it validated by ECVAM, endorsed by the Scientific Committee and incorporated into Annex 5 requires that sort of timescale.
Looking at the Commission's proposal, we have to ask: is it effective, and is it realistic? I fear the answer to both questions is no. The Commission's proposal would ban animal testing within the EU, but that would simply send such testing to non-EU countries where standards of animal welfare may be much lower. The rapporteur has wrestled, as only Dagmar Roth-Behrendt can, to find an alternative; and if her alternative is to ban the marketing of any products that have been tested on animals, then that is fine; but on its own that could bring an end to research and improvements, including improvements to the health of children and adults, if no alternative is available.
Doing nothing is not an alternative either because that would bring no pressure to bear on anyone to seek alternatives. We have to keep the pressure on. Of the twelve tests required for cosmetics, three have alternatives now, a fourth is in the pipeline, four more have been refined or reduced, four have no alternatives even on the horizon. We must set realistic marketing and test end dates for each. We must require alternatives to be used as soon as they are validated. We must distinguish between makeup and cosmetics that have a medicinal purpose. We must stop manufacturers and retailers claiming their products are not tested on animals when one or more of the ingredients have been so tested. And I fear we must ask the Commission to take its proposal away and start again."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples