Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070709.15.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the Members for a very interesting debate. As I anticipated, on some issues we do not completely agree, but I am sure that with discussions and some goodwill on both sides we will be able to find solutions.
On the issue of the benefits to the consumer, we could accept that these be included in a recital – this would reinforce an important principle – but not in a restrictive way in the legislation. I will not go into details. When we get our position we will be able to see the reason why we can accept part of it.
On the issue of how the legislation on pesticides complements this legislation and vice versa, we believe that one complements the other. Therefore, when a product is not covered under plant protection legislation it will be covered by this one. It is important for clarity to maintain a clear line between these two areas of legislation. I was specifically interested to see whether there was a possibility of creating a gap, and that is not possible. It is clear that one or the other pieces of legislation will assess the safety of the product, depending at what stage it is being used, and taking into account some technical aspects of it.
On the issue of ‘natural’ and the question of 90% or 95%, it is important that when we refer to the source we have the highest percentage possible of that source. At the same time, the rest has to come from a natural source. On the other hand, if something is to be called ‘natural’ and not by reference to a specific source, then it has to be 100% natural.
The main target for all this is to ensure that consumers are not being misled. At the end of the day, the most important aspect of the proposals is to assess safety, make sure that there is no risk to the health of consumers and provide information so that consumers can make an informed choice. It will be up to them to decide whether they want to buy a processed product or something natural and fresh. It is our basic policy to promote the consumption of fresh foods, but we cannot exclude the other products from the market. Therefore we have to give consumers a choice and then they can exercise it according to their needs.
To begin with, the priority for all of us, the main consideration, is the protection of the consumer, there is no question about that, and I am sure you do not doubt my willingness to promote the interest of the consumer in this respect, but at the same time we have to remain proportional, we have to be practical and we have to be able to achieve this target with the smallest possible administrative burden.
I would like to refer to some of the issues, though I do not want to take up too much time. Firstly, on the issue of codecision and comitology, maybe I should remind you that the reason we, the two institutions, agreed on the new principle of comitology with scrutiny was precisely to find a procedure through which we could have a practical, simple, speedy way of taking decisions on technical and scientific issues by giving a stronger say to the European Parliament and having more transparency for the European Parliament to be able to express its views. By the way, this has not been used yet, we have just started with that. My legislation on health claims was the first to adopt this, so referring to the old comitology procedure is not relevant to what we are discussing now because now we are discussing the new one, which achieves the targets of transparency and of involvement of the European Parliament but at the same time allows a speedy and practical way of deciding on technical and scientific questions. Imagine having to go through the whole legislative proposal every time you have to decide on an enzyme, on an additive, on a calorie, when at the end of the day it will all be based on the views of the European Food Safety Authority that we have jointly, with legislation from Parliament, created exactly for this purpose.
I would ask Parliament, or the sides of Parliament which are keen on introducing codecision in this respect, to reconsider, because in the end we will not achieve any of the intended targets we have set and it will eventually, due to the lengthy procedures, work against the interests of consumers as well.
On the issue of the legal basis, I agree with Mrs Doyle. You know our position and I believe that we should have a single legal base. I believe that this can cover all the other considerations, because the other considerations are reflected in the legislation itself.
On the issue of allergenicity, I agree that this should be one of the legitimate factors to consider when authorising food additives, so it will be a factor to be taken into account. Labelling, too, is a very important aspect and will help the consumers get information, but we could not accept a total restriction on those additives which may be allergenic as the consumers affected by those can be protected through the labelling legislation.
On the double authorisation procedures with the GMOs I agree that we have to have a practical and good administrative practice. Therefore, we could accept the proposed clarification but with some rewording to make the text compatible with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
On the issue of herbs and spices, I agree they are natural, but, at the same time, it does not mean that they do not contain certain substances naturally which can still pose health problems. That is why it is useful and important to also include those on the list and have the maximum levels. We had a situation recently in at least one Member State where we had to consider the possibility of reintroducing maximum levels. Therefore, just because something is natural does not necessarily, and by definition, mean that it does not also contain some substances that when consumed in excessive amounts can be harmful.
On the question of nine months for the Commission, six months for EFSA, nine months is the maximum time proposed, but that does not mean that it will take nine months. However, at the same time, based on the opinion of EFSA, there is a procedure for the Commission to consult with the stakeholders and the Member States to see how they can deal with the technological needs, the benefits to consumers and to ensure that consumers are not misled. There are many other relevant factors. As you know, consultation processes in the European Union need some time. We have to be able to exhaust those processes. That is why we would like to have adequate time, but that does not necessarily mean that this time will be exhausted."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples