Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-197"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.6.3-197"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, last month, we held a debate on tobacco. The risks to public health when using tobacco are clear and scientifically proven. This is not so for the use of phthalates in toys. Although a ban on the use of tobacco was not even entertained as a serious option, a large majority within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection did go along with a ban on phthalates (softeners) in toys. Although after 40 years of use, no cases of damage to health are known, the seed of suspicion has nonetheless been sown that softeners are harmful. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this possible harmfulness has to be underpinned scientifically. The studies included tests on animals, which is common practice with regard to suspected substances. These tests resulted in a so-called ‘acceptable daily intake’ for animals. For humans, a further safety margin of a factor of 100 was added on. By testing toys, it can be indicated whether or not this ‘acceptable daily intake’ is exceeded in the case of humans. On this basis, toys can be approved or rejected. In short, this is a method based on an acceptable margin, taking a generous safety margin into consideration.
By launching an extensive campaign, spearheaded by Greenpeace, it was possible to convince many policy-makers and politicians of the need to institute an immediate ban. I can understand that; emotions run high where children are involved. The argument that children are affected, however, is two-sided: children eat and drink all kinds of things which entail a certain health risk. Why are these risks accepted and not others? It is my impression that this issue is being played up in order to use this ban as a weapon in the fight against other substances. I fear that if we now vote in favour of a ban on phthalates, this will unleash a witch-hunt against all kinds of substances, without any scientific basis. Moreover, we do not know what the harmful effects of alternatives will be. These reasons also indicate that a ban on phthalates contravenes the correct application of the precautionary principle."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples