Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-07-Speech-1-173"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-07-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings - Food additives - Flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties - Food enzymes (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080707.19.1-173"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-07-07-Speech-1-1742
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Schlyter2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, our voters want good, safe food they can trust. Will they get it with these regulations? Parliament has succeeded in getting some improvements accepted. What I am personally very pleased about is that nanotechnology, in particular, will finally be regulated and can no longer be slipped onto the market without proper vetting. The inclusion of the environment as one of the criteria for the approval of additives is an improvement. The fact that the presence of azo dyes must be shown on labels is an improvement. So there are things to be glad about. Moreover, on the point of flavourings, Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that naturally flavoured products will not be completely disadvantaged in favour of the products of the artificial flavourings industry. Despite this, I am surprised that the Council goes against the wishes of its voters. How can our governments actively oppose a text which says that additives must not mislead consumers into thinking that a food contains ingredients other than those it actually does? How can they actively oppose that? The ministers actively oppose the notion that there must be a special reason for using dyes in otherwise colourless substances. The Council of Ministers actively opposed a ban on azo dyes. They actively opposed a requirement that product labels must show that pesticides used as preservatives are included, so that the consumers would be aware of the fact. I think that if we approve the proposal for the Greens for a ban on azo dyes in products for children, we shall force the Council out into the open to defend its position in the public debate. After all, it is easy for the Council to stick to its position on such matters when it negotiates with us behind closed doors, but what government will stand up and approve additives which we know lead to hyperactivity in children and which we have good reason to believe gives rise to allergies in children? I wonder whether the Commission could not go straight for a ban. Dyes are after all hardly essential and irreplaceable additives. Besides, there are dyes other than azo dyes. If we insist on applying the precautionary principle, as soon as EFSA has shown that there are allergy risks and a heightened risk of allergy, then all we have to do is to ban it. After that, we no longer need to discuss azo dyes."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph