Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-204"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Use of certain dangerous substances and preparations2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000705.6.3-204"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-05-Speech-3-2052
lpv:speaker	lp:John Bowis2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I congratulate my friend and colleague Mr Arvidsson on attempting to make sense of this draft directive. Of course, if young children are at risk then it is right to take action to remove that risk. The question on PVC softeners in young children's chewing toys is: Who says there is definitely a risk? The answer is no-one. Who says there could remotely be a risk? The answer is Mr Suresh Rastogi, a Danish researcher who used the phthalates he happened to have in his laboratory. His research has never been confirmed by peer review – indeed it was rejected by the Commission's own scientific committee, the CSTEE. Of the six named phthalates to be banned as a result, two are used for flooring and cosmetics but not for children's toys, one is not used at all, one is not made at all, one is not used because of fears it might be carcinogenic (though on 8 February it was totally cleared by the WHO) and that leaves one, DINP that is used to soften PVC in chewing rings and so on. So, what does the CSTEE say about this? It said that there was no identifiable risk that could lead to a justified ban, that they were safe if they were used according to existing rules. The CSTEE met and decided on 25 November. On 22 November, three days earlier, the Commission had imposed a temporary ban, and we have to ask the Commission why. It is only justified under the general product safety directive if there is 'immediate and serious risk'. If that cannot be shown clearly, then the legality of the temporary ban can and should be questioned in this case. Indeed, the case was to be brought to court but was put on hold when the Commission agreed to work to produce validation systems for the test methods by the end of this year; so we can test these and test the alternatives. Why is the Commission rushing forward now? Why are the CSTEE minutes not published until April, and why has a statement critical of the Commission's misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the research still not been published? Crying wolf damages the credibility of the precautionary principle. I ask the Commission to answer these questions today, and to get its internal scaremongers under control."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Bowis (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph