Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-365"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.15.3-365"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, modern society with all its consumer goods, which include many different kinds of appliances, requires materials and substances with very specific characteristics. Everyone, or most of us, accept and use these products. However, the substances and materials in these products, as well as many kinds of foodstuffs, can carry risks. As everyone should know, our whole lives are fraught with risks and uncertainties. Life is about being able to deal with these risks and uncertainties in a sensible manner.
The Commission proposal sets the right tone for clearer guidelines for applying the precautionary principle. Mrs Patrie’s opinion that the EU must clarify its stance on the precautionary principle, has my unqualified support. Unfortunately, I am bound to say that the draft resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which is too lengthy, does not meet this requirement. Its wordy and ambiguous style make it impenetrable as to its actual meaning. This is in contrast to the resolution of the Nice European Council.
In my amendments which I have tabled, I attempt to clarify these matters and delete a number of redundant paragraphs.
As science is often unable to establish a direct link between products and their possible harmful effects, we demand more clarity in the matter. In order to apply the precautionary principle, it is absolutely essential to provide a scientific basis for the concern about possible harmful effects. Both restriction and acceptance of a certain level of risk are important in order to take measures. In addition, it is important for us to give due consideration to the protection level we have opted for, which can largely be deduced from the legislation we have drafted.
Finally, I am of the opinion that reversal of the burden of proof is not appropriate. In order to use the precautionary principle correctly, we also need to know what the harmful effects will be of any alternatives, should a prohibitive measure be taken."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples