Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.3.2-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, everyone is becoming caught up in the revision of the directive on cosmetics. What has happened to the sixth revision? Are we moving straight on from the fifth to the seventh and ignoring the sixth? That is what everyone is wondering. However, we all want to have safe and anti-allergenic cosmetics, to spare animals any unnecessary suffering, to maintain jobs, competitiveness and the expertise of our businesses.
This seemingly straightforward desire seems difficult, nigh impossible, to implement. This resolution is a good illustration of Parliament trying to gain the upper hand, and the Council, quite rightly, refuses to support it. To impose a target date for a ban on animal experiments could lead to several measures. The first is to no longer guarantee the safety of products placed on the market. These products would not have been subject to the full tests that provide the same guarantees as those carried out on animals. The second point is to put European products on the markets of third countries at a disadvantage by continuing to carry out tests on animals, these are currently the only fully reliable tests. The third point is to risk a sanction being imposed by the WTO which may perceive this ban as a barrier to the marketing of cosmetics produced outside the European Union, even though it is generally accepted that few directives proposing alternative solutions will come to light until another ten years or so and that animal experiments may be phased out completely in perhaps another 20 years.
In my view, it would be more realistic to enter into dialogue with the Council, leaving behind this overly passionate – and now ideological – debate, so that we can work together to find the best solution which will be acceptable to industry, consumers and animal campaigners. I believe that a ten-year ban which includes exemptions for three types of tests – namely reproductive toxicity, toxicokinetics and toxicity through repeated use – would be more acceptable.
Lastly, I note that some directives are being revised for the seventh time whereas others, such as Directive 79/409 EEC, have never been revised before."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples