Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.13.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We share the view that a continuous overhaul of existing legislation is necessary. What, however, is at issue is the political level at which legislation is to be passed. In terms of basic principle, we are of the view that it is the Member States’ respective national food authorities that should in the first place decide which food additives are to be permitted. If the food authority in a particular country judges that certain specific additives are to be permitted in connection with the preparation and sale of a food item, we see no reason why an EU directive should affect this judgment. Food safety and public health are extremely important issues, and EU authorities should therefore only deal with them when there are practical benefits of their doing so that also extend beyond national borders.
There are good reasons for assuming that this report, as well as similar legislative proposals, will further strengthen EU authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). We have voted in favour of those amendments that emphasise that this is a minimal directive and that thus make it clear that national flexibility is to be permitted. We have voted against the report as a whole. We have confidence that the Member States’ national food authorities are fully competent to deal with this important issue in a satisfactory way. Our attitude naturally presupposes that goods are to be labelled with their country of origin so that consumers will be able to make active and informed choices."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples