Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-17-Speech-4-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051117.14.4-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
If it is the case that 85% of all chemical substances in circulation are not tested to ascertain to what degree they present a risk to people and the environment, then it is high time that this omission was rectified once and for all. No longer can we tolerate our people being used as guinea pigs for chemicals to be found in such everyday products as computers or toys, which are absorbed through the skin or the airways, and the risks inherent in which have never yet been put to the test.
We are already being presented with the bill for this culpable negligence in the shape of increasing incidence of allergies and thousands of cases of bronchial or skin disorders contracted at work.
It must, of course, be a matter of the highest priority that all those substances suspected of being carcinogenic and/or mutagenic should be tested and taken off the market. Things should never have been allowed to come to this pass, in which people work with substances about whose side-effects no information is available. The essential thing in future is that it be ensured that newly-registered substances are harmless.
Quite simply, there must be no more horror stories about toxic dyes in clothing, aggressive fragrances in cosmetics or fire-retardants finding their way into mothers’ breast milk.
We will certainly not achieve this objective, though, if the original proposal is so watered down that, out of 100 000 untested chemicals, 88 000 stay that way. It is for this reason that I voted against the reports."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples