Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.32.2-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Despite long debates and a great deal of effort at persuasion, we have not managed to regain our grip on reality. What is crucial is not the composition of a particular food, but the whole picture involving the interplay of healthy and balanced diet suitable for people when considered in terms of their specific situation as regards activity, age and gender.
Any profile ought to take all these things into account, but, as these factors are constantly changing, we have to realise that there are no such things as nutrient profiles and that, instead, the only way open to us is that of education and upbringing, what rural German women call ‘learning to handle everyday life’, and which is best communicated through the family and school and general education. I also hope that the ‘traffic light’-style labelling to which consideration is still being given is no more than a witless joke.
Who knows, though, what can occur to ‘such clever people’? One example of this approach’s divorce from reality is that no such information may appear on drinks, such as wine, with an alcohol content in excess of 1.2% by volume. On the one hand, then, scientific profiles are demanded, while on the other, the dissemination of scientific knowledge is prohibited.
Wine is also governed by existing EU regulations, and that must also apply in this case. Our debates may well have been lengthy, but it is evident from the compromise that they did not go on long enough. I supported the amendments in the hope that they might make this squalid compromise tolerable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples