Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-244"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.8.2-244"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I welcome this joint debate, which covers three important legislative dossiers on which we are close to agreement following constructive interinstitutional dialogue. I will address each dossier in turn.
The common position includes mandatory labelling, but states also that these substances could be exempted in the future, should scientific evidence provide justification for such action. I share the view of the rapporteur and the committee that this might not be the best solution, but I do not agree with that suggested by Amendment Nos 1 and 2. Indeed, Amendment No 1 states that, for alcoholic drinks, derivatives should be labelled only if they are present in an amount which scientific research has shown may cause allergic reactions. This is not acceptable because science only provides evidence that allergens and their derivatives cause allergic reactions. No scientific data are available on what residual amount of a given allergen may trigger an allergic reaction. Furthermore, the amendment would be impossible to implement and the burden of proof is reversed. It is for the manufacturers to provide evidence that the specific allergen derivative they use is not likely to cause an adverse reaction in order to be exempted from indicating it on the label.
Amendment No 2, in its first part, is identical to Amendment No 1, but concerns foodstuffs other than alcoholic beverages. It also expressly exempts the processing aids used in alcoholic beverages from labelling, while these are not covered in this paragraph of the common position. It is, therefore, not acceptable.
Amendment No 3 requests the Commission to adopt, before 1 January 2004, following an opinion from the European Food Safety Authority, a list of derivatives that should be considered as non-allergenic.
This goes in the right direction but, in addition to the unrealistic deadline, it is not acceptable as such because only studies conducted under the responsibility of the industry, on specific allergens’ derivatives used in specific circumstances, could be considered and submitted for an opinion from the EFSA – for example, fish gelatine used as clarifying agent in beer.
That is why only Amendment No 4, which constitutes a workable and reasonable compromise, can be accepted.
I will now turn to Mrs Ayuso González's first reading report. In December 2002 the Commission adopted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. The main objective of this proposal is to adapt Directive 95/2/EC in the light of recent technical and scientific developments and to ensure the functioning of the internal market, a high level of protection of human health and the protection of consumers’ interests.
To this end, the Commission proposes to authorise a new food additive, to withdraw the authorisations for the use of some food additives, to revise current authorisations and to harmonise the use of food additives in flavourings at Community level.
In particular, on the 'use of food additives in flavourings', the proposal is in the interests of consumers and industry as it would achieve harmonisation of this sector at Community level.
A package of compromise amendments has been tabled, following close contact between the various institutions. COREPER has marked its agreement to this compromise package, to which I gladly add the Commission’s support.
I will now turn to the last of the legislative dossiers, Mr Olsson’s second reading recommendation on hormones. I very much welcome the progress made. The debate on hormones has proved to be as delicate as the hormonal balance controlling the physiological functions in living creatures.
I would like to thank the three rapporteurs, Mrs Klaß, Mrs Ayuso González and Mr Olsson, and the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for their hard work on these legislative dossiers.
As you know, the Commission initially proposed to prohibit the use of oestradiol in the light of advice that this endogenously produced substance is a carcinogen. Parliament supported this.
However, intricate discussions in the Council – which took more than two years, spanned four presidencies and included two extra background reports – have demonstrated that prohibiting oestradiol is not as straightforward as was first imagined.
Member States have drawn attention to the significant difficulties likely to arise from a prohibition, in particular the distress that this may cause with respect to animal welfare and the reorganisation of stockbreeding.
We therefore had to reconsider, by asking ourselves: what are our objectives? They are, firstly, to protect consumer health and, secondly, to achieve compliance with WTO requirements.
According to the Commission’s analysis both objectives can be achieved with the compromise proposed today by the rapporteur, Mr Olssen, and his colleagues, to whom I offer my sincere thanks.
The adoption of this text with Amendment Nos 17, 18 and 19 would result in a significant reduction in the use of oestradiol. Moreover, it clearly distinguishes the three remaining uses from the use of oestradiol for growth promotion. It will, therefore, allow the Community to implement its international obligations in the context of the World Trade Organisation.
Therefore, I look forward to the debate on these interesting and important issues.
I will start with Mrs Klaß's recommendation for second reading. The adoption of this proposal on foodstuffs labelling legislation, to which we are very close, will be of great benefit to consumers.
The common position represents a balanced compromise, including the majority of the measures proposed by the Commission, whilst restricting the scope of exemptions. It also reflects the European Parliament’s wish to increase the accuracy of the information on foodstuffs labelling.
The common position includes – either word for word or in substance – Parliament's four amendments as set out by the Commission in its amended proposal. It also takes into account most of the other Parliament amendments on three important points.
First, the flexibility in the ingredient listing and the exemptions from the obligation to indicate the components of certain compound ingredients will apply from 2%, rather than the 5% initially proposed.
Second, the review and update of the list of allergenic ingredients to reflect scientific advances. Moreover, when the list is updated, ingredients may be removed if there is scientific evidence to show that they are no longer allergenic.
Third, the addition of celery and mustard and their derived products to the list of allergenic substances.
However, one question is not completely settled. There is no available scientific basis that demonstrates either that the derivatives of certain allergens are still allergenic, or that they are no longer likely to cause adverse reactions. Thus the question arises: should we require mandatory labelling of those derivatives?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples