Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-023"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Medicinal products2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021022.1.2-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-22-Speech-2-0242
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexander de Roo2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3,3 substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3,3 vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the centralised procedure is our preferred choice. Medicines should be accessible to all Europeans, particularly following enlargement. The fact that we have 500 amendments is to do with the different lobbies and, above all, with the conflict between new and generic medicines. I welcome the compromise that has been reached, which offers protection that lasts eight years. I can just about endorse the ten-year market protection for new medicines within the EU. However, it should be possible for manufacturers of generic medicines to sell their products in countries outside of Europe. Those countries are invariably poorer and would benefit from these cheaper medicines. My group is delighted that the Commission's proposal to authorise advertising for prescription medicines for AIDS, asthma and diabetes has suffered a crushing defeat in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Despite this, the Liberal Group has re-tabled this absurd proposal. In the USA, advertising for prescription medicines has been decontrolled for the past five years. Sales have increased by 80%, admittedly not only thanks to advertising, but even so. The American population has not become any healthier as a result. The pharmaceutical industry's profits, on the other hand, have soared. Patients are in great need of more information, but only if they ask for it. At the moment, they have to make do with American websites. Via the Internet and telephone helplines, it should be possible for patients to obtain information about medicines in their own language. The five-yearly re-evaluation of medicines has now become a formality. My group would prefer to see an improved re-evaluation procedure put in place, a re-evaluation with substance. Does a medicine have value-added? The pharmaceutical industry is decidedly against this. I should, however, like to repeat that it is not commercial interests but health care that should come first. Many medicines are toxic substances. When they leave the body, they are often still toxic, also to the environment. This is why my group is very pleased that consideration will now also be given to the environment in the assessment of new medicines. The European Commission has dropped a major clanger in this respect. Is that because the Directorate-General of Industry is responsible?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph