Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-13-Speech-2-565-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111213.34.2-565-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to build on what the previous speakers, Mr Schlyter and Mr Rossi, have had to say. We criticised the fact that these packs list some fruits not contained in the product. This proposal in its current form will not change this. The positive thing about this proposal is that it will no longer be permissible to add sugar to fruit juices. That is the good news. I do not want to restate Ms Ayuso’s criticisms.
Commissioner, the fact is, however, that you speak of better consumer information. How can it be considered better consumer information when the pack does not indicate that the poorer quality of the oranges used has been improved by adding favours from other sources? That was not permitted in the past. Hitherto, only good quality fruit could be used, taking flavourings from the same batch and adding it back again. This was a principle of quality. We are now about to abandon this.
The second issue here is the addition of sugar. We have a labelling directive and it states that if it is printed on the packaging, it must be in the product. We are now going to confuse the consumer by stating ‘no added sugar’ on the pack. As this has been left off packaging for five years, the consumer will now believe that products contain sugar again. There is obviously a lack of clarity in the legislation you propose.
My second point relates to the procedure followed. I would like to address my fellow Members here. When only nine of the 31 amendments tabled in the Committee on the Environment are included in this so-called compromise, and four of these are technical measures, then we have nothing to thank the committee for. The text contains none of the committee’s proposals. The wishes of the Council and Commission have clearly been implemented in this instance, which is something that has greatly displeased us. Let me be quite honest with you. I intend to vote against this compromise because it is a poor solution, because it reduces the quality of products, and because it marginalises the procedure and Parliament itself. I cannot be a part of that. We should stop and think carefully about how we deal with a matter like this in future.
We could have had the first and second readings, but there is no need for a hasty decision. After all, our sole remit is to make decisions all day long. The document before us now is a bad piece of work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples