Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.4.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on her excellent work, although some of the issues she has dealt with have caused some confusion. With regard to the majority of them, we believe that we cannot make any exception to the fundamental ideals relating to growth and civilisation in which we firmly believe and which Parliament has never failed to uphold.
This applies to animal experimentation, amongst other practices, where continuing to fail to apply a limit, thereby delaying research into alternative methods of experimentation, means failing to encourage research itself and continuing to use practices which are in conflict with those goals of prosperity and civilisation.
The only point in Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report which I do not understand is the point relating to Amendment No 28, previously Amendment No 26, to the Commission text, which contains the list of allergenic substances. Clearly, the respect to be shown towards animals must also be shown in equal measure to human beings, and it is therefore our responsibility to place a limit on the use of substances with proven allergenic capacity.
Out of the 23 substances listed in the amendment, there are certainly 13, as the rapporteur rightly points out, with proven allergenic capacity, and it is therefore justified to place a limit on their content in products. Then there are another 13 whose excessive toxicity has yet to be proved, as the rapporteur implies, moreover, specifying that the Scientific Committee has recommended limits to be placed on their use, purely as a precautionary measure and pending more thorough analysis. This is an indirect precaution in the sense that there can be absolutely no risk of toxicity – always assuming that their might have been – in the use of these ingredients according to the limits laid down. The fact is that these last 13 substances include 11 defined as natural essential oils which may as well not be used at all as be used in the quantities laid down, and the concern is therefore not that the quality of the product will suffer but that local farming economies, particularly in the south of Europe and particularly in France and Italy, which produce the basic ingredients – jasmine, citrus fruit in general and bergamot, in particular – will be wiped out."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples