Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.4.2-054"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 this report and congratulate them on the impressive work they have done.
The proposed solution to ban animal testing within the EU whenever possible and to make mandatory use of all alternative methods at the earliest opportunity seemed an improvement. It will lead to the management of animal testing within the European Union, thereby answering the criticism of exporting the problem.
Acceptable validated alternative methods are still lacking for a number of key toxicological parameters. They are necessary for a full health risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients to ensure a high level of consumer protection. It is impossible to predict when all the necessary alternative methods might be available.
Finally, the European Union is bound to ensure compliance with its international obligations, but an essential objective is to provide the highest possible level of safety. A total ban on all animal testing would endanger the safety of cosmetics and therefore human health.
The marketing ban, linked to the acceptance at OECD level and excluding any cut-off date, reduces the risk of a challenge under the disputes settlement system of WTO. The European Union, with the strong support of the European Parliament, is seeking to promote considerations relating to the welfare of animals with the WTO. However, this proposal has so far found very little support among the WTO members.
Some colleagues have argued that the EU should implement such a ban and see whether it is challenged by other WTO members and then if necessary consider the measure in the light of WTO opposition. I put the question to my colleagues who are responsible for WTO relations and their reply is as follows: Such a course of action has a political cost. We would reinforce the suspicion already widespread among developing countries that, regardless of their commitments in the WTO agreements, developed countries intend to use their trade power to impose their own ethical priorities and values on others. To provoke a WTO case under those circumstances might, therefore, be counterproductive, increasing the polarisation between developing and developed countries and reducing the chances of success of the EU's effort to bring such matters as animal welfare and environmental and social considerations into the WTO discussions. That is the opinion of my colleagues who are responsible for this field in WTO relations.
I am convinced that further work, in close cooperation between Parliament and the Council and Commission, will finally lead to a balanced solution that genuinely benefits animal welfare while safeguarding consumer health and our international commitments.
Mr Jackson put two detailed questions on Amendments Nos 21 and 28. On the second part of Amendment No 28, we could accept in principle the listing of these recognised fragrance allergens in Annex 3, according to the suggested modalities, but it should be in the form of a Commission directive. The Commission would reject the first part.
The proposed amendment to Annex 3 has to be implemented via a Commission directive adapting technical progress adopted under the comitology procedure. As far as Amendment No 21 on fragrance listing is concerned, this amendment requires a full ingredient listing, including perfume composition.
Given the large number of ingredients in fragrance compositions, indicating all the fragrance ingredients on the labelling would neither be feasible nor helpful to consumers or dermatologists and would be disproportionate to the anticipated risks. Furthermore this deletion would remove the legal basis for requesting that fragrances with potential allergenic effects be indicated as requested in Amendment No 26, which has been introduced in the common position.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept in principle Amendment No 1, first part, Amendment No 5, first part, Amendment No 27, second part and Amendment No 28, second part. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, second part, Amendments Nos 2 to 5, second part, Amendments Nos 6 to 27, first part, Amendment No 28, first part, and Amendments Nos 29 to 33.
The wish expressed by Parliament in its opinion for the first reading to improve consumer protection has, to a large extent, been taken into account in the common position. That said, I am aware that Parliament's assessment might be different and I fully respect it, as has been confirmed here today.
The Commission and Council welcome in particular the proposals relating to some categories of products, such as products for children or intimate hygiene or the extension of the minimum durability date requirement. They would be of clear benefit to consumers.
The Commission shares Parliament's concerns on the use of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR). The cosmetics directive already regulates the use of CMR substances in a sectoral manner.
However, to find a consistent and sustainable solution for the substances specific provisions have been introduced to strengthen the legal framework, while complying with the key principle of risk assessment. Furthermore, the Commission has proposed new measures on these new substances in its White Paper on the new chemicals policy and we are now working on concrete proposals with my colleague, Mrs Wallström.
Regarding the fragrance allergies issue, the Commission and Council welcome the introduction of a labelling system for allergenic fragrance ingredients. This will improve the current labelling requirements to allow consumers who are sensitive to certain ingredients to avoid products containing them.
As regards the issue of animal testing, we all know how difficult and sensitive it is, especially because it creates a great deal of concern among the public. We all share the objective to reduce animal pain inflicted during experimentation.
This issue is linked to many other policy areas and we are therefore working in constant and close cooperation with my colleagues, Mr Byrne and Mr Lamy, who are responsible for health and consumer protection and trade issues respectively.
The Council common position compromise has taken these aspects into account in a new global approach. It leads to a balanced solution offering a genuine benefit to animal welfare, whilst safeguarding consumer health and taking into account the impact of our internal decisions at international level. We thought that this approach would be a positive step and give a political signal that your concerns have been considered, as it reintroduced a marketing ban."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples