Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.6.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we are again, with farmers demonstrating because we are dealing with food issues. I believe it to be important that we should keep fighting to win consumers' trust, and it is particularly with regard to foodstuffs that more precise labelling is vitally necessary.
In my capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would like first to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, for her fine cooperation. Even though, when discussions started, we approached issues of detail from slightly different angles, as a whole we took the same line, so that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy complemented each other very well, something which I do think should be mentioned and appreciated at this time.
As a whole, the Commission proposal amounted to a welcome advance in the labelling of foodstuffs, but no doubt there is nothing so good that it cannot be improved. That was a task for us here in Parliament.
The existing rule that all food ingredients – including constituent parts of compound foodstuffs – must be enumerated in the so-called list of ingredients on the label did indeed provide for derogations. Mrs Klaß has addressed the question of the so-called 25% rule. We often hear it said by way of justification for this that labels were made too all-inclusive by the large number of constituents listed on them, thereby ending up being unreadable, which was no doubt a bit extreme. The Commission itself made reference to the absence of uncertainty in Member States where this rule did not apply. No doubt the 25% rule was problematic mainly in that consumers could not know, when buying processed foods, whether they contained substances that might trigger allergies, in that even very small proportions of these were significant to the consumer.
I do think that this context makes it clear that an even closer look needs to be taken at the difference in Amendments Nos 7 and 12, and consideration given either before or after the adoption of the directive as to whether this scientific basis for the inclusion of allergenic substances is the right one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples