Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-049"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-04-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cosmetic products2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010402.5.1-049"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-04-02-Speech-1-0502
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this debate on the subject of animal protection reminds me of the foot-and-mouth crisis. In the name of international trade, tens of thousands of healthy animals are being slaughtered. In this light, the testing of cosmetics on animals pales into insignificance. Nevertheless, this subject is not unimportant. I believe that all these animals are creatures of God and deserve to be protected for that reason. In addition, we have been given animals to use for our daily nutritional needs. Animal experimentation is an entirely different matter. We can accept experiments on animals for the development and testing of essential medicines. There are, however, less essential purposes for which animal tests are used. In my opinion, these also cover cosmetics. We all know too well now that an increase in pressure from society has prompted the European Parliament to press for a ban on animal testing for cosmetics. After all the respite which the cosmetics industry has been granted, we should clarify the matter once and for all. I therefore back Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report. I do wonder, however, whether we should amend the directive at all, since existing legislation is clear and a further delay is undesirable and unacceptable. As far as perfumes are concerned, I do not believe that these should be tested on animals for any allergic reactions. A warning on the label that these could cause an allergic reaction should, in my opinion, suffice. We are, of course, left to deal with the import of cosmetics from non-EU countries and the international rules in this connection. This should, however, not stop us from forging ahead. It is hoped that in the rest of the world too, a broadly-based discussion will take place at a high level, at which point people will realise that animals should not be used for absolutely everything. If this leads to a more limited choice of products, so be it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph