Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.4.2-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it has taken us twenty-five years to come to the point of a common position which represents a real compromise.
I want to pay tribute to Mr Lannoye. He is a parliamentarian of considerable skill, and he has argued his case throughout with force and conviction. But he undervalues his own contribution to this debate, because it is what he has done and others have done that have led us to a position which can be fairly regarded as a compromise. Those who deny that and say that we are still in the position of total obstruction, are really admitting – as those are who wish in the vote tomorrow to reject the common position – that they do not want this directive at all. They do not want to see the addition of vegetable fats anywhere, in any Member State, in any form, for anything called chocolate. That is not a position which either the majority of the Member States or the majority of consumers in the European Union would accept for one minute, and I want to use my brief time to argue the contrary case.
If we move on from harmonisation at nought-percent vegetable fat, which has always been in the campaigning argument, we move to a position where we ask for safeguards for consumers, for the primary producers, and essentially for the standards that we set ourselves in the European Union.
The amendments that came before the Environment Committee, with the exception of the few that were passed, were wrecking amendments. They were designed to postpone, for the lifetime of this Parliament and the lifetime of this Commission, any resolution of this issue, and that is not acceptable. They called for impact studies to come into force before the directive itself can take effect or all manner of additional labelling over and beyond the double labelling on the packet which is provided here for the consumers.
My Group supports the common position with some exceptions, and they will all make themselves heard in this debate. We believe that this is good for consumers. They get a wider choice of product and separate and distinctive labelling. It is good for the manufacturers of all the vegetable fats and I include cocoa butter in this. Cocoa butter is the predominant component of all forms of chocolate, as it will continue to be, also for those who have produced the natural vegetable fats, a specific list which can only be altered with the advice and consent of this Parliament.
If I came from Burkina Faso or Mali or one of the countries that produced
and I was told that the women’s cooperatives who collect the shea nuts that are a substantial part of their exports to Europe, will be banned or put at risk because they are seen to be stooges of the multinationals, I would be very angry indeed.
The last point that I have time to make is to the producers of quality chocolate by the specialised methods we see in Belgium and some other areas. Quality argues for itself. You can have additional labelling if you want. People like me will continue to eat it, but we want people to have the widest choice of all the products which will expand the import of cocoa and added vegetable fats into the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"beurre de karité"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples