Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.4.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I agree with all the speakers so far. It is unacceptable that when we are making such enormous scientific advances we still accept the infliction of pain on small animals in order to find out whether a new face cream is safe.
I would like to express my strong support for the report. The rapporteur has struck the right compromise: the ban would not be immediate but could come into force in five years, and that means that, in effect, we have given the companies concerned at least 15 years' notice since we first started discussing this about ten years ago. I also support the idea that we should demonstrate our own responsibility – a concept which is foreign to the Greens – by introducing a marketing ban as tests are developed where at present there are no alternatives available, even though we then have to set a deadline for these tests, perhaps ten years ahead. Parliament's report will give the search for alternatives a new urgency.
I have two questions to the Commission and I hope that when Mr Liikanen answers he will address himself specifically to my points on Amendments Nos 21 and 28. Mr Nisticò and Mr Nobilia raised this earlier on.
I am very concerned that, on the labelling of fragrances, aromas and essential oils, Amendments Nos 21 and 28 involve the introduction of unnecessary requirements which may have a very unfortunate effect on the composition of products, their continued availability and indeed the viability of some of the smaller firms that make them. The rapporteur proposes a very comprehensive system of labelling when perfumes and aromas are present in products, even in tiny amounts. In fact, although this is designed to protect the few consumers who have allergies to certain fragrances, the proposal is unlikely to provide a significant public health benefit. There may be no safe fragrance for some allergic individuals. The best they can do, as they well know, is to steer clear of products with fragrances in them altogether.
The rapporteur is reacting to representations by the European Consumer Bureau, which says it is putting the case for allergy sufferers and clearly sees the issue as part of its war on chemicals. I have to say that I have received no representations from allergy sufferers on this point.
The European Flavour and Fragrance Association points out that the amendments will saddle consumers with products carrying references to up to 50 ingredients in 11 languages. This is stupid and unnecessary. Furthermore, there is a danger that some essential oils would be removed from formulations, thus damaging the economic interests of some countries, including some very poor countries. These amendments are a bad and unnecessary deal for consumers and the industry. I hope that the rapporteur will consider withdrawing them and that the Commission and the Council will reject them."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples