Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-14-Speech-4-021-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Food intended for infants and young children and food for special medical purposes (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120614.6.4-021-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-06-14-Speech-4-022-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Julie Girling2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, may I also offer my congratulations to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs. Better regulation should simplify the rules, unravel the tangle and make interpretation and implementation simpler, and this is a thread which clearly runs through the Commission’s proposal. I absolutely agree that infants, young children and people with particular medical conditions should be protected from misleading information, but I do ask myself sometimes whether we have really simplified this proposal, or whether we are just making it more complicated, but in slightly different areas. Yes, it is true, as the rapporteur said, that we had an agreement, but that agreement was breached by putting amendments to this plenary session, so I feel quite free on my own account to breach it too. So I will talk about the issues that I did not sign up to in the compromise. The first was the proposal on gluten-free. I certainly do not believe that the proposal that we have come up with in committee makes it easier for consumers. I do not believe it adds anything at all to their safety or to the protection of their vulnerability. It is protecting certain manufacturers in certain countries, and certain national regimes, and we should cut across that. I also have particular problems with the low calorie diet and very low calorie diet proposals from committee. They were offered no evidence at all that medicalising people who have a condition known to threaten their health would be helped by making it more difficult for them to get hold of the products that they find useful. Again, following on with the ‘no evidence’, we were offered no evidence at all on the advertising of the milk products, the follow-on milk. It was an emotional reaction, which I am sure is very worthy, but there was no evidence. We should be making our rules based on the evidence in front of us. Again, on these new amendments on pesticides, we already have, in my view, strict and well-regulated rules in place for the use of pesticides. No evidence was produced, beyond opinion, that it was necessary to provide stricter controls for these vulnerable groups. If we are going to make these points and legislate on them, people should at least have the courtesy of showing us decent evidence as to why we should go along that road."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PECH (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; PECH (2012-02-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2012-02-02--2014-06-30)3 member; AGRI (2012-02-02--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Conservative Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2012-03-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "Julie Girling,"1 "on behalf of the ECR Group."1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph