Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.5.1-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we adopt new legislation in this House we always assume that it will constitute an improvement on the current situation. That is why I, as rapporteur, also require the seventh amendment of the cosmetics directive to be an improvement on the status quo. And is it? This is what I am asking myself and also all of you. In response, many in this House will say with me: no it is not. The sixth amendment of the cosmetics directive, for which I also had the honour of being rapporteur some years ago, clearly provides, for example, that in a number of stages an absolute final date should be set for animal testing for cosmetics, a date after which no more animal testing should take place.
I would ask that we all bear in mind that there are now more than 8 000 tested ingredients which people can use quite happily. Now, however, the question is: what happens with new ingredients?
This test and marketing ban – in effect a sales ban – from the sixth amendment has been converted by the Commission into a straight ban on testing in the territory of the European Union. This therefore means that in the future, people will be able to carry out tests on animals quite easily, for as long as they wish, just a few kilometres further away. Now I am hearing from all sides – including from the Commission – how sympathetically and favourably they look upon my amendments, but that unfortunately they cannot accept them because there are trade-related issues preventing them from doing so. Is this true? No, it is not. No one is yet in a position to say which way the ruling would fall in a case before the World Trade Organisation because no case has yet been decided on the basis of the protection of animals and moral considerations. Whether the Commission's trade argument would carry weight at all is all the more questionable because recently, a few months ago, the United States itself decided in its Dog and Cat Fur Act to adopt laws which are based solely on animal protection and on the moral sensitivities of the population.
That is why I would invite the Commission to be rather more plucky at this juncture and to make its political priorities clear. Mr Liikanen, you know how highly I esteem you, at this stage you really must nail your colours to the mast and declare your intention to do your political duty. Stand up to your colleague, Mr Lamy, and others, or explain to them that they are mistaken.
What does ‘a marketing ban some time in the future’ mean? Of course, I am also starting from the assumption that the products are safe. I am not forcing anybody to spread an unsafe product on their skin or on their children's skin or even to brush their teeth with an unsafe toothpaste. I would never want this.
That is why I wish to propose a way forward which I consider to be very reasonable and which was generously supported by many colleagues in the Committee. Yes, there should be a test ban. Yes, there should be a marketing ban – a sales ban – wherever there are alternatives which have already been evaluated. Some time later – five years in my amendment, perhaps even later – there should be a total sales ban. During this time, industry also has the chance to develop alternatives and to invest in research. In the intervening time there should then be a labelling system so that consumers know, and it is fair that they should, whether they are buying products which have been tested on animals.
The seventh amendment should, of course, bring even more improvements. Can it really be the case that the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products in the European Union should ascertain that ingredients – fragrances – cause allergies and these fragrances not be indicated on the label? This is unacceptable. It contravenes the principles which we have in the European Union, namely that products must be safe, but also clearly identifiable and genuine. So they have to be labelled. What I am proposing is nothing more and nothing less.
Surely it is also only right and proper for consumers in the European Union to know when they buy a product how long it can be kept for and how long the active ingredients will remain effective? For how long will the toothpaste still taste good and for how long will the perfume or the skin cream remain safe to use and not turn rancid? That is why I am proposing to this House, with the support of the Committee, that we develop a symbol and that the Commission prescribe a clear label to go with it for products with a durability of over 30 months. Once they have been opened, how long can they be kept?
In my opinion, these are all proposals which improve the sixth amendment – that is why we are here after all – and which afford a better level of protection to consumers, but also keep them better informed and give them the right to choose. In the first reading of a piece of legislation this is definitely what we all want and what we should have. After all, we also need to go into the second reading with something to play for. I am convinced that not only consumers can be happy with this but also representatives of the cosmetics industry, even if they still give the impression that they are downtrodden and victimised. I think that, at the latest, after this reading and also after the second reading, they will recognise that we need to join forces and achieve a viable working relationship. I invite them to do so here and now."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples