Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.5.1-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for their support and also for the discussion today. The Commission is well aware that the debate on animal testing is a very difficult and sensitive one. It has raised, and is raising, a great deal of concern among the public as many of you have mentioned here today. The issue is linked to many policy areas, all of which have to be taken into account including public health, consumer protection as well as the need for us to comply with our international obligations. I have therefore worked in constant and close cooperation with my colleagues David Byrne and Pascal Lamy, responsible for health and consumer protection and trade issues respectively.
I would like to congratulate Mrs Roth-Behrendt and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for the many suggestions made in their report which aim to improve health and consumer protection not least by providing consumers with more relevant information. The Commission welcomes, in particular, your proposal for amendments relating to some categories of products such as products for children and intimate hygiene products. You propose the improvement of safety requirements of these products as well as the extension of the requirement of a minimum durability date for all cosmetic products which would be of clear benefit to consumers.
We share the concerns of the European Parliament on the use of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. The Commission has proposed new measures on these products in its White Paper on the new chemical policy which is now in public consultation. Actually, I personally think that it is important for larger parts of industry to be responsible for developing new alternative testing methods. The whole issue of chemical policies is of vital importance here because more and more new tests are needed and for that reason we need more efforts to create alternative methods quickly. This cannot be done by one part of industry alone.
With regard to the fragrance-allergy issue, the Commission welcomes the introduction of a labelling system for allergenic fragrance ingredients. This will represent a positive improvement to the current labelling requirements allowing consumers who are sensitive to certain ingredients to avoid products which contain them.
On the issue of animal testing, the Commission understands and shares the objective of Parliament to reduce animal pain inflicted during experimentation. Let me recall the reasons behind the Commission's proposal. The aim is to ban animal testing for cosmetics within the EU and to make the use of alternative methods mandatory at the earliest opportunity while respecting our international commitments. An additional primary objective, however, is to provide European citizens with the highest possible level of safety in all products which they use. This proposal has the advantage of achieving these objectives by providing legally and practically enforceable measures without giving rise to possible trade disputes.
By contrast, a marketing ban would give rise to serious difficulties according to the Commission's trade and legal experts. It would have a significant impact on trade and would run a serious risk of a challenge under the disputes settlements system of the WTO since it would inevitably lead to discretionary treatment between imported and domestic products. The Community is bound to ensure compliance with its international obligations. Such a unilateral measure would run contrary to the EU's current policy in the WTO to seek the inclusion of animal welfare issues in the discussions for the next round. Only a coordinated approach at international level can improve animal welfare on a wider scale. In the meantime, the Commission will continue its efforts to bring about the elimination of animal testing both at home and internationally. I am convinced that further work in close cooperation in this very difficult and sensitive issue will finally lead to a balanced solution offering genuine benefits to animal welfare while safeguarding consumer health.
The Commission can, in principle, accept Amendments Nos 1 (first part), 2, 4, 5, 7 (second part), 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 (second and third parts), 15 (second part with the exception of the suggested consultation of the European Parliament), 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 (second part), 26, 29 (second part), 30, 31 (second part with the same remark as before), 32, 33 (second part), 34 (second and third parts), 38 (second part), 41 and 49 (second part).
On the contrary, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 1 (second part), 3, 6, 7 (first part), 8(3), 14 (first part), 15 (first part), 20, 21, 23 (first part), 24, 25, 27, 29 (first and third parts), 31 (first part), 33 (first and third parts), 34 (first part), 35, 36, 37, 38 (first and third parts), 39, 40, 42, 48 and 49 (first and third parts)."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples