Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.4.2-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work on the proposal for the directive amending Directive 95/2/EC. This directive authorises the use of a number of new food additives which are currently banned but which have been assessed recently by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) and deemed fit for human consumption.
The report clearly expresses consumer concerns in the face of the flood of additives, of chemicals, into our daily diet. Indeed, our diet has changed radically under the influence of lifestyle changes and the contributions of new technologies. The time devoted to preparing meals has been reduced considerably. This often leads us to eat ready-made meals, which are practical but which do not really suit our tastes or fulfil our vitamin and mineral requirements. The fact is, the industrial foodstuffs which wind up on our plates have often undergone intense processing leading to the loss of flavour, texture and colour. In order to overcome these disadvantages, the chemists of the agri-foodstuffs industry add artificial flavourings, flavour enhancers, firming agents, colorants, etc. What is more, with food distribution chains becoming ever longer, it becomes unavoidable to have recourse to preservatives and oxidation inhibitors.
This cannot fail to give rise to concerns on the part of consumers who, following recent food crises, are increasingly anxious to know just exactly what they have in their plates! In response to these concerns, the European Union has endowed itself with a particularly complex arsenal of legislation which is supposed to eliminate any risk to the consumer. So, in order to justify the inclusion of an additive in a foodstuff, there are three criteria which must be fulfilled, though there is still rather a wide margin for interpretation. The technological need for the additive to be approved, for example, is obviously determined by the industry itself, which argues primarily in terms of reducing production costs and winning markets. At the moment, this criterion is the weightiest consideration. Usefulness for the consumer is a particularly vague concept. Does the consumer really wish to eat a fruit or vegetable which has remained in his fridge for a month without changing in appearance? Finally, there is the criterion of harmlessness. Before any substance may be authorised for use as a food additive, it must, in principle, be subjected to toxicological assessment. Normally a great many tests are carried out on laboratory animals in order to determine whether the substance is harmless, and at what dosage it may be safely consumed.
There are still loopholes! On the one hand, the human being does not always react in the same way that animals do, so extrapolating from the results of tests on animals to human experience is always problematic. On the other hand, these experiments assess the effect of each substance taken in isolation. Our diet, however, often contains a cocktail of different substances whose combined effect is rarely identified! The precautionary principle must be used with the utmost rigour in matters of foodstuffs! The Commission’s proposal has not taken adequate account of this principle! We therefore await Commission proposals for provisions that are directed more at improving consumer protection but also at promoting quality foodstuffs!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples