Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.7.1-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to start by saying that, with Paul Lannoye as rapporteur, the report concerned has been placed in very competent hands, and I am able fully to support all his conclusions. As is well known, there are three prior conditions which must be fulfilled if additives are to be included on the positive list. There should be a technological need, the product should be useful to the consumer and there should be documentary proof of its being harmless. Paul Lannoye rightly points out that none of the prerequisites are present in the case of sodium alginate. The substance is not useful to the consumer. On the contrary, it directly misleads the consumer by making sliced carrots look fresh, even if they are not. It is also very unfortunate that the synergy effect has not been investigated. It is, on principle, very alarming that the Commission should be able to extend the list of additives just because the substances are permitted in parts of the EU. This rule ought to be changed so that an additive can only be put on the positive list if there is a clearly documented technological need for it which is also, mind you, of benefit to consumers.
It is ironic to be having to deal with this proposal such a short time after the publication of the Commission’s White Paper on Foodstuffs. In the white paper, the Commission itself attaches importance to limiting the consumption of additives in order – as the Commission puts it – to thereby avoid negative effects on health. The Commission also states that it wishes to guide consumers as best it can so that they themselves can make a choice. On examining this proposed directive, the conclusion has to be drawn that there is very little connection between words and deeds in the EU’s handling of additives. I seem to remember that the original intention in drafting a positive list was partly that it should be possible to decide to remove additives from the list. Current liberalisation of the quantity of permitted additives is worrying. Let us, therefore, have the list shortened as soon as possible rather than extended. In addition to what Mr Lund has said about nitrites and nitrates, I would mention that, in the course of the last part-session, I asked the Commission if the newly discovered scientific facts about these two substances’ effects on health had caused the Commission to review its position. The answer was unfortunately ‘no’ and, in common with Mr Lund, I should like to see that ‘no’ justified here today."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples