Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-050"

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	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010402.5.1-050"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-04-02-Speech-1-0512
lpv:speaker	lp:Nicole Thomas-mauro2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2003-06-16)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2003-03-10)3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the amendment to the directive on cosmetic products has provoked intense debate on the issue of animal testing. The text seems to have abandoned the idea of a marketing ban on new cosmetics tested on animals and prefers to confine itself to a ban on testing cosmetics on animals within the European Union. Of course, no one is in favour of animal testing. Nevertheless, in this case, we must be seen to act in a realistic and consistent manner. Animal testing represents only a very small part of cosmetic testing and, besides, it is destined to be phased out within ten years, thanks to research undertaken by laboratories to find new types of testing to replace it. In the current situation, however, there is a lack of sufficiently reliable alternative methods. Furthermore, the general strength of feeling for an immediate and outright ban on animal testing seems quite strange, at a time when tens of thousands of animals are being slaughtered on our farms, without any hesitation whatsoever, in order to combat foot-and-mouth disease which could be eradicated with a mere vaccination. To put it mildly, does that not amount to an unfortunate clash in our agenda? An immediate ban on animal testing may also lead laboratories to carry out their testing on people, who are so poor that they are forced to accept anything in order to survive. So, then, it will not be pictures of rabbits with sore eyes that you could be feeling sorry about; it will be pictures of women in the third world who are disfigured as a result of allergies. As usual, it is the poorest people who will suffer from our legislative whims. The question is not to find out whether we are in favour of animal welfare, but whether animal welfare counts for more than the welfare of the poor. Basically, if we interfere too much in the work of our industries, the latter will take their business outside of the European Union so that they will be able to compete with other countries and particularly the United States, since testing on animals will not be banned there. Will thousands of workers’ jobs be put at risk? Of course they will, and once again, it is the least well-off who will foot the bill. Ladies and gentlemen, does this sound like the social Europe that you have been hoping and praying for?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph