Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.10.2-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, allow me to start by extending a warm thanks to Mrs Ferreira for the good cooperation. Our examination of this document went exceptionally well. A balanced compromise has been struck with the Council and it is this compromise that will, if all goes well, be adopted tomorrow, for which many thanks.
I should like to make three comments with regard to the discussion of what is, in fact, a minor legislative proposal. These comments should also be observed in future. What irritates me is that we in this House are sometimes inclined to twist things that have been scientifically proven, in order to adapt them to political statements or political sentiments.
This is what Parliament does, and it annoys me. However – and I am also addressing this to the Commissioner, for I have also had a run-in about this with your officials – the Commission does not get off completely scot-free on this score either. They resembled political weather vanes to some extent. In my opinion, we should involve ourselves with matters that have been passed on to us by independent science, and not what we find politically agreeable.
So much for my first comment. The second may equally come across as a little abrasive and is addressed to the German and Austrian bakers and the Italian pastry cooks. Because of them, the discussion was very gruelling, because they thought that we would overlook their products. Last Thursday, I rang them up and asked them whether they had read the original Commission document. Had they read it, they would have seen that a separate category had already been inserted for energy-reduced products. They made our lives very difficult on that score. A lot of discussion eventually turned out not to be necessary.
Finally, I should like to make a comment with regard to Mr Lannoye’s Amendment No 4. In this amendment, a request is made, among others, for a report about the re-evaluation of the licence for aspartame. This strikes me as entirely superfluous, because everything on this subject is sufficiently dealt with in compromise Amendment No 2. Moreover, as the Commissioner mentioned again a moment ago, this sweetener was evaluated extensively in December. This therefore means that we should adhere to these results. I fail to understand why Parliament then comes trotting along with the safety issue of another sweetener, stevia – which the Commissioner also touched on a moment ago – of which scientific evidence proves the contrary of what is claimed in the amendment. On that score too, I urge you to be led by independent scientific research in future and be less swayed by the political issues of the day, because that way, I think we will arrive at the best legislation. My thanks, once again, to the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples