Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-217"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051115.25.2-217"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-11-15-Speech-2-2182
lpv:speaker	lp:Dan Jørgensen2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; CONT (2004-09-13--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Socialdemokratiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, tens of thousands of chemicals surround us in our everyday lives. They are everywhere. They are in our clothes. They are in our cars. They are in the ball-point pen I am holding. They are even in our children’s toys. Unfortunately, we do not know very much about the effects of these substances. We do not know what damaging effects they have on our environment. We do not know what damaging effects they have on our health. With REACH, this is something we now at last have an opportunity to set right. With REACH, we are being given the opportunity to obtain the basic data and to adopt a number of principles, which will be incredibly important. For me, the most important principle is that of the reverse burden of proof whereby, before industry is given permission to market a substance, we shall in future require it to prove that the substance is safe. It will thus no longer be up to the authorities – as it is today – to prove that a substance is dangerous with a view perhaps to withdrawing it from the market. The second and very important principle whose implementation we need to arrange for is the substitution principle. If there is a substance on the market that is dangerous and another that is not so and is thus a better alternative, it shall be compulsory to exchange the dangerous substance for the less dangerous one. Finally, I want to say that those who think there is a contradiction between competitiveness and sound, stringent chemicals legislation are mistaken. On the contrary, it is the chemical industry’s only hope for the future that REACH be worded with just such stringency and that it force the chemical industry to innovate, to invest in research and fully to commit itself to those parameters within which it will have to compete in the future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph