Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-294"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.12.3-294"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Torben Lund on a sterling report which can rely on my group’s unqualified support. Endocrine disrupters are a relatively new concept. In my own linguistic area, the term did not become an established concept until one or two years ago. I know that the Danish equivalent is oestrogen substances and that they have been the topic of discussion for nearly ten years. The English term is endocrine disrupters and, certainly in scientific literature, they are the subject of a heated debate. But in German, for example, there is still no term which has become established. This indicates that the problem is new but no less serious as a result.
We fully back the 2001 deadline. I fear that the European Commission, under pressure from the chemical industry, will want to wait too long before introducing statutory measures.
Half of the 560 substances which are suspected of having an endocrine disruptive effect are pesticides. The Commission has admitted this in response to my questions within the Environment Committee. We ought to start with these. They should, in any event, not be placed at the end of the list.
Do endocrine disruptive characteristics play a role in the approval of pesticides at the moment? Unfortunately not. They do not feature in the so-called uniform principles, although they should. In my view, this should be put right during the revision of the Pesticide Directive in 2003 at the latest. I hope the Commissioner is able to give us a response on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples