Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-207"

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	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000705.6.3-207"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-05-Speech-3-2082
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen Kristillinen Liitto (1999-07-20--2001-05-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the matter under discussion concerns children, and is therefore highly emotive. I know that very well, as a mother of three. Furthermore, the facts available to us are such that there are very good reasons why people might end up expressing exactly opposite points of view, all of which might be quite valid. The person making the decision should look at the issue calmly. Parliament has even shown a desire to ban all of the nearly 350 phthalates instead of the six proposed by the Commission. However, there is some kind of evidence of the possibility of danger in the case of only two phthalates. In addition, a warning was called for on products designed for 3 – 6 year olds, although the risk is likely to be associated with very small children, who like to put things in their mouths, in their discovery of the world. Reliable migration tests in respect of phthalates are not available, however. It is excellent that the EU is active in this matter, as seven Member States have already introduced national regulations. What is even better is that the issue is being dealt with in a consistent way. In my opinion, Mr Arvidsson has made a rational and responsible contribution to the issue, and is applying the EU precautionary principle to this problem of toxicity properly. The precautionary principle is a very important tool in environmental legislation. It should only be used, however, when there is scientific reason to suppose there is a real risk. This therefore concerns the existence of a scientifically demonstrable risk and the reaction to it, not the existence of a fear that might surround the substance. You can cry wolf once too often. Neither is it sufficiently justifiable to resort to the precautionary principle if, for example, some Member States have introduced national legislation in this area. Parliament’s struggle to ensure the safety of children is very worthwhile in a Union that often just concentrates on hard values. Parliament will be doing the safety of children and everyone else a disservice, however, if it erodes the basis of the precautionary principle, the possibility of a real risk. That is what we are in danger of doing in the case of phthalates. What sort of repercussions will it have, for example, on food safety? It is at least as important today to make sure we preserve the precautionary principle for future needs as it is to take a decision on the banning of phthalates. Finally, I would like to say that not one lobbyist from the chemical industry has come up to me. My concern relates solely to the vague application of the precautionary principle. If we want to ban PVC, let us do so freely and openly."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph