Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.6.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we are surrounded by chemicals in our everyday lives. Even natural products like the leather of these desks or wood are treated with chemicals; and of course we put chemicals in our bodies, both as food additives and as residues from pesticides; and we use cosmetics, some of us more than others, which come into intimate contact with our bodies.
PVC has received a lot of attention and despite the fact that it has been around for over 40 years with no apparent health risks, the spectre of the risk of PVC has been raised. I wonder if it is maybe being unnecessarily demonised, to provide an enemy that the Greens can use in their campaigns.
Parliament has already discussed the problems of phthalates, the substance used to soften plastics, in the context of children's toys. The problem we faced there was determining how much of the chemical gets into people's bodies. No migration testing is available to test how much of these chemicals enters people's bodies. Of course that will also be relevant in the application of PVC to medical goods. Although I am sure I would not like a blood bag used for a transfusion I am getting, or a piece of pipe that has been put in my body, to contain poisons, similarly, I would not want a product which did not perform as well to be used in that application.
Other PVCs are treated with stabilisers to prevent them being broken down by heat and light. In particular, window frames have been mentioned. Cadmium, which is being phased out, and lead have also been mentioned in this context. Lead is toxic when ingested as a compound, but no one would suggest that it is risky to be in a room which has PVC windows, this is an inert substance. It is when we get to the end of the life of the PVC that we have a problem, as Ms McKenna said. We must certainly try to recycle more PVC. PVC windows have a long life – in fact, none have been recycled yet because they have reached the end of their useful life, but only because buildings have been demolished or because fashion has changed. We are looking at a 60-year life cycle. If we ban the use of lead in new windows, we will not be able to recycle the old windows when they come into the waste stream. Technology is available to ensure that windows made of old lead-containing PVC are overlaid with new PVC so people do not come into contact with it.
Before we ban something we should look at the whole picture. What are the real risks, in particular the risk of absorption when we use these products; and what are the risks of alternative products? My house has wooden windows and we have to paint those every three years, so there are risks even with wood, and of course some companies marketing alternative products will play up the risks. Lastly, we should be very careful how we use the precautionary principle because that can be dangerous: used correctly, it is a good thing but if it is used to justify actions for which there is no scientific basis, in politically motivated campaigns, it is a very dangerous principle."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples