Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-295"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Food supplements2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020312.12.2-295"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-03-12-Speech-2-2962
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, two different types of argument have been put forward for this directive. The first concerns public health, the second harmonisation of the internal market. I consider that the public health arguments are weak. There is no major public health problem from people overdosing on vitamins and minerals. Nor will the risk of overdose disappear with this directive. If we really want to make a vigorous contribution to public health, we should possibly address the subjects of alcohol, tobacco or something else rather than the area covered by this directive. The fact is too that the EU is not allowed to introduce harmonisation on public health issues. This is clearly stated by the Treaties. There is also a risk that consumers who use certain dosages of particular preparations will find this more difficult once this directive has entered into force. The real motivation behind the directive is harmonisation, in other words the opportunity to be free to sell everywhere. This is not a strong argument in my opinion. In my view, sometimes other considerations must be more important than a free market. I consider that, in areas such as this, different EU countries should be allowed to have different rules – more liberal or more restrictive – depending on the wishes of the voters. I consider that supranational rules should only be used to combat real supranational common problems. This is not the case here. We have witnessed a furious and quite unpleasant lobbying campaign. Its methods and its content have been counter-productive. Several of the arguments put forward against the proposal have been exaggerated and sometimes also incorrect. Parts of this proposal are positive, such as the requirement for declarations of contents. On the whole, there are, however, no strong arguments for implementing the far-reaching harmonisation proposed. There is also a risk that the system which has been drawn up will benefit major industrial interests at the expense of small enterprises. ("@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph