Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-367"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Precautionary principle2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001213.15.3-367"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-13-Speech-3-3682
lpv:speaker	lp:Anneli Hulthén2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 unknown; Socialdemokratiska arbetarepartiet (1999-07-20--2003-01-31)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2003-01-31)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Patrie who has produced an excellent report on the precautionary principle. It is no mean task to define the precautionary principle. I personally think that it is impossible to create a general precautionary principle which applies in all situations. Each situation requires its own precautionary principle. This is hard for us to accept, but foodstuffs and chemicals are not the same thing. They cannot therefore be dealt with in the same way either. Our task is to create the framework required to protect both the environment and the health of people and animals. The precautionary principle does not look the same in our respective countries. However, what we need to do now is to create a common precautionary principle at EU level. The principle must be clear. We must be able to uphold it internationally, and it must also be given legal weight. Several people in this House have already mentioned the mad cow disease scandal as one of the many scandals we have experienced recently. This scandal reveals something extremely important, namely the importance of having the courage to make decisions even when we do not have all the proof on the table. But there are more examples than mad cow disease alone, examples which are perhaps not as spectacular, but where it is just as important to make decisions. We have the example of phthalates in children's toys and we also have this strange idea of putting toys inside sweets, ice cream and other edible products. In the one case, we say that we do not have sufficient proof and, in the other, that there have not been enough serious accidents for us to have the courage to take action. It is just a shame that it is not the scientific community but the internal market that controls what is released onto the market. This is an untenable situation. In reality we cannot have this kind of situation. I support the whole of Mrs Patrie's report but I would also like to highlight what Mrs Schörling said earlier in her speech, and that is that we need a stricter position with regard to the burden of proof, particularly as regards products without prior approval. Producers and manufacturers must be able to present proof that a product is in fact safe. We must avoid a situation in which the consumer acts as some sort of paying guinea pig when it comes to new products on the market."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph