Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.16.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if all goes well tomorrow, our Parliament will give the green light to these two new regulations in the food sector.
One is designed to bring some order to the jungle of foods and of drinks that are fortified, for example, with vitamins; the other is designed to authorise or to ban, under certain conditions, nutrition and health claims that increasingly appear on these very products.
We are concerned here with two proposals that genuinely speak to Europeans and, with a view to helping them choose what to buy, provide them with concrete answers regarding the trust to be placed in these claims. BEUC points out, in actual fact, that 60% of consumers believe that a calcium-rich product can only be good for a balanced diet, something that is not necessarily true. In reality, the only way not to make a mistake is to know the full composition of a food or drink product, its sugar, salt and fat content; that is why we need nutrient profiling, real nutrient profiling and not cut-price profiling. That is what is proposed to us in the shape of compromise 66, the famous disclosure clause, which in reality proposes giving both the red light and the green light to the same package. As far as I am concerned, this is the height of contradiction, a move designed to make the consumer as confused as possible and, on that point, I do not agree for once with our rapporteur’s analysis.
That being said, I shall abstain on this issue so as not to block this text, which is urgent.
I have already said on numerous occasions that I am opposed to this Article 4 being toned down in any way and to certain messages praising the virtues of alcohol being authorised. I am therefore opposed to both Amendment 18 and Amendment 489.
I should, of course, like to thank our two rapporteurs, Mrs Poli Bortone and Mrs Scheel, and the Commission and the Council. They have grasped the full importance of these citizen-friendly laws, while taking into account, as has been pointed out, the anxieties often expressed by SMEs, as well as the need to work in this Chamber for the general interest and to resist certain specific interests.
I believe that, in one part of her speech, Mrs Sommer set the tone of the debate by making what I felt were harsh and unwarranted criticisms of the work of the Commission and of our Commissioner. You will therefore allow me to conclude, at this point, that we have nothing to gain from European law being drafted at the International Sweets and Biscuits Fair in Cologne."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples