Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.12.3-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, as regards endocrine disrupters we currently have a lot of doubts, a lot of questions and absolutely no certainties. These substances can have excessively harmful effects on reproductive functions, whether they be human, animal or plant. We do not know the maximum exposure levels or the likely exposure times involved. These substances themselves have not been listed. That is already a lot of questions.
Focusing on research now will provide us with the means to find answers to all these questions. Moreover, this is the meaning of paragraphs 3, 6 and 7. Better cooperation with American and Japanese research authorities is absolutely vital. A programme of Community research that enables as much information and scientific proof as possible to be gathered must be supported. In our 2001 budget, we must set aside appropriations on a par with our ambitions for the sixth framework programme on research and development. This research alone will allow us to take into consideration the specific risks linked to these disrupters in future framework legislation on chemical substances.
The rapporteur – who has produced an excellent report – cites the precautionary principle as the basis for the relevant measures to be taken. But also in this respect, intellectual honesty must be demonstrated. The precautionary principle not only leads to the implementation of legislative measures; positive, non-legislative measures may also be introduced. My amendment aims to make this reality.
I also hope that the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment, which was expressed on 5 September, will be taken into consideration. The expertise of this scientific committee is well known and it would be appropriate to take its opinion into account before any legislative decision is taken. I think that it is important that we should rely on the opinions of experts. The precautionary principle also dictates that we should base our decision on the best scientific knowledge available.
The Group of the Europe People’s Party and European Democrats is henceforth opposed to the motion to shift the burden of proof as of today. I feel bound to repeat this, although this is what I have been saying all along. So, even though there are no certainties, it is much too early to overturn the regulations on responsibility applied to this matter. In the case of dangerous substances, authorisation is required before they can be placed on the market. It seems to me that this procedure is already a safeguard.
I agree with the rapporteur that our Parliament must send a realistic and responsible message to the general public, to consumers, to the Commission and also to industry in general. Their doubts and concerns are real. We must provide a commensurate response."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples