Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.12.2-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to express my satisfaction at the outset at the progress that has been made on this proposal for a directive on food supplements.
This is a strong endorsement, in my view, rather than anecdotal accounts of individual consumers who, in my opinion, have probably been misled by the statements made by many which are simply untrue. They have misrepresented the aims of the directive, used misleading arguments and misinformed consumers. This was made clear during the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.
Mrs Müller has done an excellent job as rapporteur. Her contribution to the advancement of the draft directive has been invaluable. I sincerely congratulate her and thank her. I would also like to acknowledge the responsible and very constructive role of Mrs Corbey, as shadow rapporteur.
The common position provides a very good framework for the regulation of food supplements in the European Union. It is designed to ensure that a very wide range of such products is available to consumers. The underlying criterion for a single market in food supplements is safety: adequate and appropriate labelling designed to inform consumers. Of course, these products must be used in the context of a diversified diet and in line with manufacturers' instructions.
The deadline for preparing dossiers for the evaluation of substances that are already on the market is an important issue. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed, concerning small and medium enterprises, that a period of 18 months for the preparation of evaluation dossiers may be too short.
If that were to be the only amendment to the common position, I would be prepared to consider an extension of the period mentioned. I can, therefore, accept any one of Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4 or 5 that relate to this point, provided that this would contribute to the adoption of the common position without further changes.
I have also taken careful note of the interventions with regard to good manufacturing practice for food supplements, which is the subject of Amendment No 2. I would like to reiterate what I said at first reading. The adoption of principles of good manufacturing practice by legally binding measures for specific categories of products is not appropriate in the case of foodstuffs. This already exists in relation to foodstuffs in many pieces of horizontal legislation. I am happy to take comfort from Mr Nisticò's contribution on the basis that he is certainly one of the MEPs I know here who is a scientist himself. He supports this legislation. He has asked me to take careful note of the risks to ensure the elimination of low-quality products when this framework legislation goes through the system. I am happy to say that will be taken into account.
The vast majority of these principles are covered by horizontal legislation, particularly in the directives on hygiene and control. These will apply also to the manufacture of food supplements. In the draft directive, we are referring specifically to the issue of purity criteria for the vitamins and minerals to be used. We have improved the relevant provisions following your amendment at first reading. We also foresee adopting specific technical rules with regard to the margins of tolerance for the amounts of vitamins and minerals declared to be present in food supplements. We believe that these rules are important for ensuring the quality of these products.
I am firmly of the view that this array of horizontal and specific rules fully covers all concerns expressed that these products should be manufactured to high-quality standards. I cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 2 to adopt provisions on GMPs for food supplements. However, I reiterate that I will give priority to adopting the technical rules on margins of tolerance mentioned in Article 9(1).
Amendment No 6 refers to the criteria that will be used for setting the maximum levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. This point was the most difficult one to reconcile in the Council. The text of Article 5 is now carefully balanced. It is my belief that any disruption would jeopardise the whole proposal.
Finally, Amendment No 8 proposes an addition to the text that concerns principles for the functioning of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and of the Scientific Panels of the European Food Safety Authority. I believe that these issues are adequately covered in the recently adopted general food law. They should not, therefore, be repeated in this specific directive. For this reason I cannot accept Amendment No 8. But I repeat and emphasise that the role of the European Food Safety Authority in this area will be of paramount importance and that this work will be done by independent scientists. The evaluation of that work by the Board of the European Food Safety Authority will be done in a fully transparent way – indeed, in public.
First of all, the objective of this legislation – and I must emphasise this – is not to ban food supplements. It has to do with maximum safety levels. I regret very much that I have to disagree with my friend Mr Bowis, for whose opinions I have the utmost respect, when he says that the position at the moment is that there are upper safe limits. That really is not the position. This will be the position after this legislation comes into place. That is the purpose of the exercise. This exercise will be based on scientific evidence and scientific evaluation.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the common position as such is satisfactory on all substantial points. The Commission would be ready to accept a technical modification of the common position to extend the period mentioned in Article 4.6.b. as in one of the amendments – Amendment No 1, 3, 4 or 5 – if that would help the adoption of the directive at second reading. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 6 and 8 and certainly does not support Amendment No 7, that calls for the rejection of the common position.
It also dismays me to some extent to hear people in this House – also for whom I have enormous respect – express the view that this legislation is motivated by, of all things, lobbying of the pharmaceutical industry. That is a slander. It is absolutely wrong. It is unfair to say that I or the people who work for me would be motivated by such things. But sometimes people who make these allegations are the ones who are inordinately concerned about the role of industry. But what about the role of industry that profits from this piece of legislation not going through? What about that? Have they questioned themselves to determine whether they have been subjected to such a degree of lobbying from that industry that they have themselves been duped by that industry and tried to tar the Commission and those who advocate the passing of this legislation with a brush in a way that I find quite reprehensible?
The subject is not an easy one. We currently have very different attitudes, rules and practices among Member States. These impede the free circulation of food supplements within the European Union, and can deprive consumers from access to a wide range of these products.
So the case for harmonisation is obvious and is strong. I believe that the vast majority of stakeholders share that view. You will not, therefore, be surprised that I cannot support the views of those who propose, with Amendment No 7, to reject the common position.
A substantial number of Members of Parliament and of the Commission have been subjected to an orchestrated and misleading campaign against the adoption of this directive. This campaign has only been waged by those who do not share the general European interest.
I should also emphasise to Mr Blokland and others who make reference to being lobbied by consumers who have written letters, that may be the case. I suspect they may very well be people who have been seriously misled by those who profit by this legislation not going through the system.
The consumer organisations who are there to look after the best interests of consumers have not been misled. They are in favour of this legislation. BEUC has come out and said that it supports this legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples