Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.6.3-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Last year, all EP Members were inundated with e-mails on food supplements and vitamin preparations. Both a scientific theory and an economic interest underlie these. The theory of Linus Pauling, who became renowned for his protest against nuclear arms, is interesting. However, the economic interest of Mathias Rath, who dispatches products from the Netherlands to customers in Germany, where his products are banned, cannot justify an adaptation of the law. These food supplements should be subject to the same rules as other contentious products which are consumed by the public in the expectation that these will benefit their health. Government intervention is only justified to protect people from harm. On-going debates, lack of scientific certainty and permanent differences of opinion on the effectiveness of substances cannot be resolved by legislation which from the outset lumps together anything which deviates from established medical science under the umbrella of fraudulent practices. I note that many people use these products and that they consider any ban imposed by a bureaucratic government to be unnecessary and patronising. Under these circumstances, the EU should confine itself to controlling harmful substances. Since it would be preferable if the EU were to redirect any other measures to the national legislator, who can react more effectively and more quickly to changes in public opinion, I vote for rejection."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples