Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.9.2-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This question relates to the testing of cosmetics on animals and considering the issue in the context of the WTO.
The Commission shares Parliament’s objective of improving animal welfare and we fully acknowledge that placing restrictions on animal testing would contribute to the achievement of this objective. On the other hand, the European Union is also required to provide a high level of health protection and to ensure that its policies are in line with its international commitments. Now, a marketing ban that is based not on the product characteristics but on manufacturing procedures would certainly force many of our trading partners to change their policy and legislation in order to be able to enter our market. This could, in fact, provoke a reaction. We should be aware that, until now, animal testing is the only method used in most countries to assess the safety of products intended for consumption, particularly cosmetics.
As far as we are concerned, we remain convinced that there are other methods, aside from a marketing ban – which is Parliament’s position – which can be used to bring an end to testing the finished product and its cosmetic ingredients on animals. This is the purpose of the proposal that the Commission made in order to ban animal testing within the European Union. In our opinion it is the acceptance of alternative testing methods by the international community that will provide the most effective contribution to animal welfare. We are committed to encouraging the use of
cosmetic testing, particularly within the OECD in order to move forward in this direction.
In order to provide a precise answer to your question, Mr Purvis, we believe that there is a strong possibility that the WTO may challenge a marketing ban, if it enters into force. There are many issues to be considered in this matter such as extra-territoriality and proportionality of this and many others measures.
As for the issue regarding ‘like products’, the GATT panels supported the fact that the determination of identity criteria of two products can only be based on the characteristics of the end product and not on the way that the product is produced. In other words, production methods and processes cannot be taken into consideration when coming to a decision on the issue of a product’s identity.
We therefore believe that any defence against an attack based on a product’s identity has little, or hardly any, chance of succeeding at the World Trade Organisation. This is also the reason why, on a number of occasions, we have drawn Parliament’s attention to the danger of moving in this direction from the point of view of respecting our international commitments, which we believe should also be one of Parliament’s concerns.
Our proposal must, therefore, be appreciated within the context of protecting animal welfare, guaranteeing a high level of health protection and avoiding legal disputes, which would certainly cause problems for everybody concerned.
We believe that this situation – meaning rules which allow measures on production methods to be established only within strict limits – is far from satisfactory. This applies to the WTO’s current legislation. This is the reason why we hope to be able to include these issues in the agenda of the next round of WTO negotiations. If current legislation can be changed – and we hope that we are able to clarify it in this area – then so much the better. As the texts currently stand, there is a risk that disputes will arise."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples