Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-336"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Time (Council)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991117.8.3-336"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-17-Speech-3-3372
lpv:speaker	lp:Inger Schörling2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Thank you for your answer, which it was also very nice to have in Swedish. I perhaps understand why the answer was as it was, but this business with fish in the Baltic is just one example of how brominated flame retardants can cause problems for the environment and for people’s health. We know, you see, that these flame retardants have been used quite freely since the beginning of the seventies in electronic equipment, TV sets, computers etc, and they have just proliferated. This is an enormous problem because Swedish studies, and other studies too, show that we are going to see precisely the same thing happen as we saw happen with PCBs, namely that these chemicals will find their way into the food chains and it will gradually emerge that a big problem has arisen. I should like an answer to the question of whether Sweden would be able to take a decision to prohibit these substances by the year 2004 and whether the EU would be able to agree to this; that is to say, would the precautionary principle prevail?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph