Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.5.1-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it is now my privilege to speak on behalf of my group and to have the opportunity to respond to a number of the points which have been made. Let me do so. I am the very first to vote only for safe products, not only on the European market but also worldwide. This is what I have done since entering this Parliament, in respect of foodstuffs but also cosmetics. Mr Nisticò, even after a sales ban, of course existing products should continue to be sold as products which are recognised as being safe. The only products which would no longer be sold would be those for which animal tests had been carried out after this cut-off date.
Your Amendment No 42, Mr Nisticò, which concerns finished products, is already covered in the existing legislation. We have already discussed this in committee. Some colleagues, including in particular Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo and others, pointed out that we should also take the misgivings expressed by scientists seriously. Of course I wish to do so, and it is not my intention, John Bowis, to put any child, or even anyone older, at risk. I am simply convinced that with the ingredients which are available and have been tested we are already able, even today, to produce any toothpaste in the world and also, for me, any kind of lipstick, of which I am so fond.
I also believe, however, that from a particular moment in time, whether it be after five years or, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo, after ten years, as you propose, we need to say, no more. Either people use the ingredients now available or new ingredients are tested using alternative methods. If this is not possible then they will just have to take those which are already available. In the Committee Mr Davies ‘produced’ the philosophers' stone. He refuted a deadly argument. He said very clearly: in that case perhaps we need to re-examine the delimitation between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals if this new, fantastically important suncream protects us all from skin cancer. Good, the Committee has taken on board what you certainly have in mind, Mr Nisticò.
Then, some people have said, but there are already tests. Yes, there are: artificial tissue is used for
tests. There are very many experiments underway, and wherever you go – you have the best contacts, Mr Nisticò, but others too – listen to what the scientists are saying; they do not have enough money. Let us make money available for this under the sixth Framework Programme for research, but let us also invite industry to invest more in this than they have done to date.
I should like to make one final point: if we decide on a test ban today, but also a marketing ban in a few years' time, we need to have a labelling system for the interim period. That is why I would invite all of you once again – and in particular my colleague and shadow rapporteur from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrat) and European Democrats, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo – to take another look at Amendment No 39. This is the amendment which is of the greatest significance, in conjunction with other amendments of both yours and mine.
Finally, colleagues, I should like to thank you for your very fair and constructive cooperation in the run up to our discussions in the Committee, during the vote in the Committee and also here in Parliament today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples