Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-417"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.14.3-417"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to add my own congratulations to those addressed to the rapporteur. Everyone has already said that this is a very difficult matter since various interests backed by large lobbies are involved, but also fire safety and the long-term protection and future of the environment.
It will probably be a very technical debate. Pentabromodiphenyl ether. What’s in a name? This concerns bromide-based flame retardants, but also a socially very relevant theme. The previous speakers have clearly shown the problems this creates for the environment and public health. OctaBDE and decaBDE are, as a result of a Regulation on risk analysis, which is now seven years old, the first to have been placed on the first list of priority substances for risk analysis. The evaluations have not yet been concluded. Since those substances are known to be dangerous for the environment, waiting for the conclusions of that slow risk analysis would unnecessarily delay better protection of human beings and the environment. Although I should have preferred to see an immediate ban on bromide-based flame retardants – as my fellow MEPs are aware – I completely support the compromise, since it is also acceptable. It provides for an immediate ban on penta- and octaBDE and the banning in 2006 of decaBDE, unless – and this is important – it is proved to be harmless.
It also immediately indicates that in this matter we are balanced between policy based on risk analysis and the new chemical policy that we are dealing with at present and that is designed to facilitate faster analyses, but also above all that responsibility for this no longer lies with the Commission and the Member States but with the manufacturers.
This matter shows yet again that the current chemical policy with a substance-by-substance analysis takes years and that as a result the authorities are in a very weak position for protecting human beings and the environment. Therefore, in the strongest possible terms, we are calling for an urgent revision of the policy, as we are at present doing with the White Paper on Chemical Policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples