Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-292"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031021.10.2-292"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-21-Speech-2-2932
lpv:speaker	lp:Christel Fiebiger2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, today’s debate on the second reading of the sweeteners directive typifies a development that I regard with increasing disquiet and grave concern. The Commission justifies change in terms of the state of the art in technology and science. I too am in favour of scientific progress, but not everything that appears to be an improvement is actually in the consumer’s best interests. I ask myself what will be the end result when the food industry produces food by refining, to a high level, animal and vegetable raw materials and by the use of thousands of synthetic flavourings, and is able to take these processes almost to extremes. Our daily food intake is being taken over by pharmacists, chemists and genetic engineers. Whilst I cannot and will not put up with this situation, it is evident that someone is making money out of it, and it is for precisely that reason, and in the interests of public health, that it is an absolute necessity that food directives should rest on a scientific basis. The assessment of risks is, however, being made ever more complex and problematic by increases in the depth of processing and in the diversity of the procedures and additives used, while, at the same time, legislation becomes out of date more quickly. Turning specifically to the subject of the recommendation adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, there are two comments I would like to make. I endorse Amendment No 1a to the effect that all sweeteners should be re-evaluated within as short a time as possible before the directive enters into force. My reasoning is that I believe that the warning by sceptical scientists associating aspartame with tumours cannot simply be dismissed, the all-clear sounded by the official scientific committee on food notwithstanding. Whilst I have every confidence in the choices scientists make, I do take the view that the specifics of threshold values have to be handled with care and on a methodologically justified basis. I endorse Amendment No 3 because setting a definite deadline for the distribution of stocks of products that are no longer permitted can prevent these products from being got over the counter quickly."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph